Muskin slams in-house licensing decision

• Malcolm Cheshire 06 Aug 09

  If we accept the maxim that effective security is a balance between asset protection and threat mitigation (Manunta, 1999) then a licenced and regulated security officer should be regarded as an asset.

  Therefore, the converse becomes true in that an unlicensed and therefore unregulated security officer ought to be regarded as a threat!

  We are in danger of creating double standards in that a company wishing to appoint an in-house medical practitioner would, quite rightly, be prevented from employing an unqualified 'back street quack' because the law (as upheld by the General Medical Council) insists upon fitness to practise in order to protect the public.

  How many members of the public have to be placed at risk before the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office remove their collective corporate blinkers and recognise the reality of the threat?

• Steve Goodwin MBE MSyI 07 Aug 09

  Another story again highlighting concens about licensing of in-house security and from the chairman of a prominent private security company.

  How pertinent will Bill's points be seen to be when the time comes for an in-house security officer to provide crucial information about or take action in an incident of a serious or even catastrophic nature?

  The fact that this was not even on the Security Industry Authority's (SIA) radar, nor formed part of the flawed decision making process, shows just how many important factors have been ignored by the Government - public safety among them. Laughable!

  No doubt we will be assured that the vetting and screening of in-house staff follows the guidelines of the British Standards, and that in sensitive areas those standards are rigourously applied. Similar to the argument that in-house staff are better trained and paid, isn't it?

  Only recently - in April 2009, in truth - the news in the North West indicated that two men allegedly found work as security officers at a well-known Do-It-Yourself store while possibly identifying a nearby chemical plant as the source of ingredients for a car/lorry bomb. The IRA of the past (and in its current incarnations like The Real IRA) infiltrated many areas of the community to identify and target judges, police officers and the families of Governent employees. Their intelligence cells gathered - and continue to gather - information on potential future targets to wage their war and even recruited traffic wardens, teachers and people no-one would even have previously considered as a terrorist suspect to swell the ranks.

  With passports and other personal information widely available for sale and identity theft becoming of more concern, even having the SIA licence does not actually guarantee the person being employed is 100% genuine, let alone that they harbour no links to terrorism and terrorist groups.

  Employing people in areas of interest to terrorists (or that could become potential targets to cause mass casualties) not only includes security. Cleaning, catering and a vast array of other activities all have growing numbers of persons employed who may have links to other countries and suspect organisations.

  A barracks in London, for example, was recently identified as having illegal immigrants working in the kitchen.

  In short, organisations need to take better precautions and use a wide range of available resources to check on who works - or applies to work - for them. The vetting and screening standard is just a guide.

  Criminals also use employment as a means to infiltrate and find weaknesses in processes and procedures. While the news report indicated the store mentioned employed characters who allegedly were/might be involved in terrorism, there's no confirmation as yet as to whether or not they were SIA licenced or in-house, but surely this is evidence enough that the system is flawed and that our security is negligently being put at risk?

  How many others are out there, hiding behind a cloak of invisibility, plotting doom and destruction while being given the keys to the castle due to a need for recruiting staff?

  Security begins at home (although given our porous borders you wouldn't think so). We neglect that truism at our peril.

• Jon Elliott 07 Aug 09

  et tu brute...

  A judicial review is needed, but who will lead that charge?

  Certainly not the BSIA. That particular organisation is too busy trying to implement another accreditation based on its redundant Towards The Future policy document.

  The security industry has been well and truly stuffed - and in spades - by an incompetent Government, the BSIA and the SIA.

• Stephen Jones 23 Aug 09

  I work in a university in-house team, and have been employed for ten years. All of my 20 colleages have worked there for at least this length of time, many of them for over two decades.

  All of us have been on many, many security courses, plus other courses as follows: counter-terrorism, First Aid (including defribillator training and Epi-pen training), lift evacuation, Health and Safety supervision, team liaison, team building, awareness training, safe driving and others.

  Please do not let anyone tell me all in-house security staff are badly trained. I also believe most of the universities in this country train their security staff in the same fashion.

  We certainly do not need to be 'badged' by the SIA to make us any better at our job or a safer bet as far as the public's concerned.

Post your own comment on this story