SMT Editor’s View: Britain’s reporting racket

• Matt Drew 23 Jan 08

  The views expressed by the BBC are akin to saying that the entire global banking industry is corrupt based on the actions of Nick Leeson.

  There will be rogue elements in any industry (including journalism), but it is inappropriate to smear the reputation of entire industries based on one or two "worst scenario" case studies.

• David Dickinson 23 Jan 08

  Yes I saw the programme and yes I agree totally with Brian's view. We actually contacted the Panorama programme to ask if they would benefit from some 'insuder knowledge' of our own - niavely, we thought Panorama might expect a balanced approach, but, no, they told that they were 'very focussd' and did not need any input from the BSIA.

  Now we know why!

• Norman Gibson 24 Jan 08

  Firstly, I did not watch the programme. However, as an end-user of a wide range of security services I would argue that the problem is the breadth of the brush with which the story is painted. My experience of the electronic side of the industry including alarms, access and CCTV is that they are NORMALLY reasonably reliable and deliver systems on specification and on budget. Conversely, the manned guarding sector (and not just the small local companies) NORMALLY fails to deliver, is unreliable, needs constant supervision by the client and is open to the legitimate criticism that appears to have stemmed from this programme.

• John Thornton 25 Jan 08

  Yes I saw parts of it. This program also came on the back of numerous Sunday tabloids "exposing criminal elements" in the manned security sector. I can understand concerns about "bully boy" tactics, but programs need to be fair and also clear, but concise. They need to be aware of the related security sectors, like ours i.e. electronic and physical security products, and the knock-on effect.

  Security these days can mean anything from spam email to combating Al-Quaida and the parameters are changing all the time. Thus, unfortunately, the electronic and physical security sectors might be "tarred" by association. Companies in our sector rely much more on good products, services and skill factors, not quite so easily sensationalized (except perhaps in some of the rogue trader programs) but nevertheless we can find ourselves dragged in

  No-one has yet asked me if we are "approved" (i.e. as per the BBC program parameters, and in ignorance of the specific issues), but it's yet another suspicion one can do without, particularly when you are genuinely trying to help.

  While "R&R Kray-types" do operate I'm sure the vast majority of firms out there provide quality, tailored and secure manned services. However, the manned sector is probably easy meat for the likes of the BBC and tabloids due to the fact that it might involve a bit of muscle, can highlight human failings and thus can be sensationalized unlike a multimeter!

• John Beattie 25 Jan 08

  As the Contract Security Manager for a large company I was dismayed at the portrayal of the industry by this reporter who obviously did not fully research her subject.

  To focus on only three companies was can I say negligent. I had one officer declined his application due to a traffic offence , it was major, but happened 4 years prior to the application being submitted.

  The SIA is the saviour of the security industry and if the current policing levels continue the publics perception of security has to change as we will be looked on more and more to assist where the police just don't have the manpower.

  I fully agree with Brian and hope the public have not been taken in by a programme was trying to up their ratings.

• Christopher Forbes-Ritte 25 Jan 08

  How nice it it is to see the 'Industry' closing ranks to protect itself YET AGAIN!!!

  Having been actively involved in the Security Industry at all levels (from building site guard to INDEPENDENT Security Consultant) for more than 20 years the one thing I have noted is that in all those years nothing has changed one bit, despite all the hyperbole about Regulation.

  I was actively involved with Bruce George MP back in the early 1990's when he was trying to get the SIA (or something similar) set up.

  Those of your readers who bothered, or were even old enough to attend the Conference at Bramshill, would no doubt have come away with the same feelings that I and several others did:

  "That the industry did not want any interference from outside and that if it were ever to be established that it would be hijacked by certain of the big players and Self-Regulatory Bodies within the Industry to ensure that they still ruled the roost!!!"

  Whilst I will agree that the actual programme was not broadbased enough as to be totally representative of the industry as a whole it did highlight one of the most significant areas of concern.

  The SIA did itself no favours by allowing Wilson to treat the reporer with such disdain when challenged about Consultants, it is afterall his organisation that has failed miserably to deal with this issue, for it is them, and them alone, who have put off yet again the Licencing of Consultants, one can but wonder why!

  If my experience of some of those calling themselves Consultants is more the rule; than the exception to it; then the industry does have a major problem, for there are far too many who should be categorised either as Self-Employed 'Salesmen' at the best and at worst driven from the industry as all they seem to do is take a fee from the client and as much in 'commissions' as they can obtain from either or both the supplier/manufacturer and the installers. thus displaying a complete disregard for the requirements of Honesty and Integrity (or perhaps those are dirty words these days).

  Mind you I did note the earlier comment that the SIA blamed the applicant's employers for even allowing an individual to apply for a licence - quite good cop out don't you think? The SIA was SET UP TO WEED THESE INDIVIDUALS OUT OF THE INDUSTRY - so why does it not do so?

  It is all well and good quoting only '11,000 out of 2.5 million licences being issued' the figure should be NIL out of however many licences are issued, and can anyone in the SIA show proof positive that they have taken action against the companies who actually submitted these bogus applications. I for one doubt it.

  Still as they have now put back, yet again, the Licencing of Consultants, I shall not need to worry about this inefectual organisation because by the time they get round to it I shall have, in all probability retired!!!

• Ian Arnold 25 Jan 08

  As an individual working in the Private Security Industry for the past 10 years, I sat and watched Panorama: Britain’s Protection Racket. On the Tuesday morning, I watched it again via my Sky Plus System.

  I agree to a large extent with what was said and heard in the program. However, I would like to be one of those individuals that does stand up and defend those Officers, Managers and others within our industry who work extremely hard and long hours, sometimes with low pay and poor conditions, to provide and maintain a level of service which meets our client’s needs and beyond.

  We all know by now that there are rogue individuals in any industry and the private security industry is no different in that respect. One only has to watch episodes of BBC’s Rogue Traders or ITV’s House of Horrors to see these individuals exposed.

  But because it IS the security industry it has found itself, once again, under the microscope, because of a group of individuals STILL managing to thrive despite legislation and regulation by intimidation, the use of force and other illegitimate activity, criminal or otherwise.

  Because we live in a free and democratic society, the BBC has every right to bring to the public’s attention the serious issues raised in this program. But, because we live in a world where it is too easy to ‘tar everyone with the same brush’, those innocent people out there, working legitimately, are unfairly affected.

  There are many examples of good practice and professional service happening daily within our industry.

  Security personnel, in some cases, are putting their lives on the line to do their job. Some even lose their lives. A quick search using the internet shows many cases of these personnel being subjected to violence and intimidation as a regular part of their work. Some would say, ‘that’s what their paid for’! But are they? Would those same people, saying that, put themselves in those kinds of situations? I think not.

  I totally approve of any action or initiative which progresses our industry further towards being free from elements such as those shown in the Panorama broadcast. Yes, we do have a way to go to get ‘our house in order’.

  But, isn’t it time that the progress in our industry that HAS been made is highlighted to the public, if only to restore a little public confidence and to give those officers and other staff a much-needed morale boost.

  Perhaps Panorama would like to make a program that shows the ‘other side’ of this story and, yes, there is another side to this story. Not everyone in the industry is working illegally or without due respect for the law. Examples of staff being dedicated, professional, having integrity and are sometimes just plain brave are there to be found, but how often is this kind of positive behaviour within our industry given the level of public airing that the negative aspects of our industry are given?

  So ‘let’s hear it for the good guys’ for a change!

  Ian Arnold.

• Bill Greenway 26 Jan 08

  Brian's article is missing the point,

  What I got from the programme was that the SIA should be doing their job properly, how the people of this country would expect it to be doing its job. The SIA may look for discrepancies when licences are applied for but beyond that they do not question or investigate applicants. They do revoke licences when they have been informed about some wrongdoing but the point is they should have investigated it in the first place.

  On Merseyside the initiative against the rogue security firms has been lead by Merseyside Police and the SIA have merely co-operated with it. The whole matter was proactively investigated by the police because of all the adverse publicity in the local press (and it is the press that Brian is trying to condemn in his article) and local people demanded to know what was being done about it.

  The SIA is just another 'civil service' type department, it earns money to issue licences it is not funded to robustly ensure that the security industry is thoroughly upright and trustworthy. This is what the puiblic and business customers really need to feel sure of. That is what the SIA should be doing or there is no point in it other than to make more money for the government.

  The SIA has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and the spokesperson in the Panorama programme did nothing to dispel this fact.

• Nick Evans 07 Feb 08

  I fear that Brian has missed the point somewhat in that the Panorama programme reported the facts in what I thought was a balanced way. The programme set out to demonstrate how criminals could run security companies and the tactics employed to protect their ‘patch’. It further went on to look at the quality of training, not from some small provider, but from a company whom one would expect to maintain high standards.

  The number of security officers that can not communicate effectively in English is something that is well reported. This well acknowledged fact begs the question as to how they ever passed their training in the first place?

  Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow are the worst examples in the Country of where security companies operate in a 'protective' manner. It still goes on, today and a quick trip around building sites in these cities will confirm this. This point was well made by the programme and if you want to know the name of the guy who phoned the programmes fictitious security company, well I know that too!

  Panorama should be congratulated on making this programme and I for one would encourage them to do more.

Post your own comment on this story