SIA remains "unanswerable to the industry" - Comments

Maybe its time to hand the licensing back to the local authorities, then it will be easier to deal with any queries and the benefit of a local point of contact for meetings to discuss problems has got to be beneficial.

Justin Bentley and Mick Lee both provide views of the ACS which show that, even after a number of years of operation, that there are still fundamental issues. Only this week I had cause to refute information provided to staff within my company regarding licence renewal by a charming, but unsure, call-centre operator. Lack of training or the fact that some lack knowledge of the industry to which they serve and give advice?

Increasing temporary staff to meet the increased demand in this licence period (which was expected) and then decreasing again as demand drops off makes business sense, but does not help those on the ground. Promising to respond to my queries and then not getting back within 48 hours is the same old story.

A comment made that if in doubt the SIA will send a letter to the Security Officer confirming information, thus delaying the process by 3 weeks, does not help those in the ACS let alone those not in it. What it does do is make the SIA KPI's fit the bill a little more conveniently perchance?

Whilst the SIA send out the NSI, BSI and others to check us, who is checking them. Recent evidence suggests a few non-conformancies.

But lets be clear, the industry has moved a tadge forward, maybe not as fast as one would like, but it has. Some are complying with the standards set to meet the ACS, whilst others employ the quick-fix. Buying a manual and documents to meet the requirements of the work-book, but not actually doing much to actually follow it and abide by criteria set, is more common than one would think.

Directors are, in some cases using sharp business practices, straight from the Gordon Brown book of fiscal management, and lets not forget our lords and masters have not exactly shown us the light when it comes to being whiter than white.

The criminals and those of ill-repute were not going to go away just because of licensing and lets not kid ourselves by pretending none have got ACS accreditation (shadow directors etc).

Security businesses are being rocked by the credit crunch, with clients extending payment periods, cutting back on staff, or moving to electronic systems, handy when police response is based on grading and the one officer on duty (except PCSO's of course).

We are in a period of uncertainty and as security is as usual the grudge purchase, the future of the industry as we know it is going to change, like the High Street. Crime spikes are already occurring in areas as the criminals seek more funds (but Jacqui tells us crime is still going down) and as the recession gets worse those security companies that provide a good cost-effective service will possibly be in demand as the threats / incidents increase.

There again it is often the case that the cost and the risks do not always correlate and we therefore get the call after an event. Whether it is to an ACS company or not, the SIA has done little to show the ACS is the cream of the crop, and its recent debacles have done the industry some damage.

Hiding findings (allegedly) and doubts about the reasoning behind change in key personnel does little to inspire either.

The SIA still get the vote for what they are trying to achieve, but not necessarily for how they are doing it. Keeping the industry out of the key roles and filling it with those who have other experiences was possibly another mistake perchance (ask the banks).

"As a Government-appointed body, the SIA is supposed to be transparent."

Surely, this is a contradiction in terms? Since when has anything this government undertaken been transparent?

If by adding ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy they can maintain tighter central control while at the same time make a shedload of money, why is anyone surprised?

It is very difficult to expect transparency from an organisation that will not even advise its own physical address, what did you expect?

I administrate a website that deals with emails containing cctv images for private circulation within a sector that sometimes need editing due to size (bmp - jpg etc) .

According to the SIA, i need to have licence if i view these images.

All this because it was mentioned that the images were emailed out and despite the email address not actually being mine, the account holder sometimes needs my help.