Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

e-petition to UK Government to increase standards in Close Protection training

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#41
Rich, here's one example of why I'm reluctant to sign anything that doesn't advocate a complete disbandment of the SIA:

A number of these 99% pass training providers cheat the tests. Their students are often oblivious to this or don't care. There's a reason the tests are done in pencil. An answer overlay and a rubber later and it's cheers easy. Most of them don't go overt and walk people through the test because they run a greater chance of being busted (by journalists or competitors rather than the SIA).

So even though the standards are ridiculously low to begin with, there are still thousands of mongs cutting about with SIA licences who are too stupid to even pass a 'stupid test'. Do the SIA (Home Office) care? Almost certainly not. Another two hundred and odd quid in the treasure box.

Stopping the above from happening i.e. raising the standards bar for the Home Office authority, would drive the cost of an SIA licence up still further. Policing anything costs money and the money would come from the applicants/operators.

Remove the SIA from the equation completely and the people providing crap or cheating the system will be put out of business. Problem solved. My money saved.

While there are end users who want high quality security operatives, there will be a requirement for high quality training providers.

While ever there is a requirement for jacket fillers, there will be jacket fillers.
 
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
#42
I think removing the SIA completely would make matters far worse.

What we have is a system. Although that 'system' remains far from perfect, it is still 'world leading'!

Yep, the SIA model is world leading. World leading because in every other country there remains no industry standard. Other countries are years behind the UK in implementing a regulated private security industry.

Ok, pre SIA, the industry was smaller with most employed being ex mil/ police that had had prior gov training and experience. It remained a predominantly a horses for courses affair with big boys networks. Yet, there were still much criminality and the tattooed thug with a pit bull mentality.

The current situation is far from perfect but what remains is a foundation to build upon (even though that foundation needs to be re-built!!)

When the SIA transitions to a 'new regime' and when this (other) regime takes hold we need to make sure that it is fit for purpose in terms of the standards. Changing them for the better needs to be done immediately the reigns are taken hold of. If they're not then we will be in no better place then than where we are now.
 

keeniemeenieman

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
181
Likes
0
#43
Rich, You hit the nail squarely on the head and what has happened since the SIA has linked us all together,irrespective of what Reg/corp/unit you belong too has now gone by the bye,this all started to happen during first Gulf when anybody could get a job out in the sandy places and good money was to be earned,also the then at the time Defence Minister of Saudi later the Crown Prince had a Saudi Colonel in charge of all the underling Prince/princess who employed all the doormen/bouncers from London and Newcastle on tyne to look after them in Europe for peanuts this started to totaly destroy our industry,this later changed and they all became legit ! they paid their money got the badge and had the same street cred as an ex plod or squaddie/booty ,everyone were lumped together with the same so called regulated qualifications.I remember in the post Falklands period a private company was set up with Government contracts (as the other main companies of the times also had) but this company was different, it was regulated and the men on the books were graded as to their past training and deployments etc this was shown on their ID cards (coded) and was upgraded at stages as their career devoloped ,they could only operate on contracts as to the level of their grade YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN ,anyway it was called NRSO (National Register Specialist Operatives)Do any of you remember this?A couple of newly formed TPs then started up to cash in on this by providing/upgraded training this again led to further problems similar to todays and the world carried on !this i believe was the prelude to the SIA but set in a different format.I am all in Favour of what you are trying to do and i believe that it is possible to make changes,it has to be changed ! Go for it,get this apathy out of your thinking and get signing.
 
Last edited:

Hoteltango

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
220
Likes
1
#44
Because you know absolutely everything there is to know about your profession? Skill fade?

The fact that we work in an industry where people think they can run an entire career without ever updating their training is exactly why new standards are needed overall.
Hi Scab,

We never stop learning and I am always trying to improve my own standards and increase my knowledge. I have spent £1000s on courses throughout my career. But I'd like to pick what I spend my money on and not be forced into paying hundreds or thousands on sitting through powerpoint presentations by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

A lot of what we all know is from years of experience and learnt on the job.

But why would I want to pay for another CP course or some shitty BTEC level 3 course in CP or whatever the new standard would be? I am confident in saying, I have learnt a lot more about CP work through working in the industry and working with top blokes than I did on my actual CP course.

Obviously regular firearms courses are essential.

I don't think a reform of the SIA would make much difference. You get walters in every industry and they would find their way back in.

The top companies recruit the best operators, so it doesn't make any difference to me at all.
 

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#45
I think removing the SIA completely would make matters far worse.

What we have is a system. Although that 'system' remains far from perfect, it is still 'world leading'!

Yep, the SIA model is world leading. World leading because in every other country there remains no industry standard. Other countries are years behind the UK in implementing a regulated private security industry.

Ok, pre SIA, the industry was smaller with most employed being ex mil/ police that had had prior gov training and experience. It remained a predominantly a horses for courses affair with big boys networks. Yet, there were still much criminality and the tattooed thug with a pit bull mentality.

The current situation is far from perfect but what remains is a foundation to build upon (even though that foundation needs to be re-built!!)

When the SIA transitions to a 'new regime' and when this (other) regime takes hold we need to make sure that it is fit for purpose in terms of the standards. Changing them for the better needs to be done immediately the reigns are taken hold of. If they're not then we will be in no better place then than where we are now.
Rich, with respect, that reads like you don't want the private security industry to be private at all. Government regulation always retards progress. It slaps a pair of brackets around something in order to suit its own agenda and limits scope for maximal improvement. That's undeniable.

By removing the brackets, genuine training providers can concentrate entirely on winning business and delivering products that customers want, and need, in order to become more capable operators. By removing the brackets, end users may choose whomsoever they want to protect them and their stuff, and they will get exactly what they pay for. The true open market.

Now, if I try and look at things from a training providers point of view, I can see the appeal of (greater) government regulation. A lot of training providers are only in business because of the SIA. So if it went, they'd go too; but as far as I'm concerned, if a company can't stand on it's own two feet without government protectionism, good riddance.

I will hold my hands up though and admit I'm being a bit selfish. If they SIA went: I'd be making more money, working with better people, doing less admin, with a bigger a smile on my face.
 
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
#46
I'm not entirely sure what your point is SJRS? It's a sunday and I've just got back from a blazing run so do forgive me.

I'm not too interested in getting into party politics. All I'm interested in is raising standards for the end user - the Principal/ Client.

If that rocks the boat with training providers then so be it. As I mentioned before, the actual manner in which, if approved/ agreed, that standards are increased of course remains open to eventual debate.

The bottom line is that currently, standards are unfit for purpose. If we want to see our industry improve then any wording on par with your last para will have to be sucked up in order to see the bigger picture.

Vote of No Confidence in the Security Industry Authority - e-petitions


Thanks.



Rich H
 

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#47
I'm not entirely sure what your point is SJRS? It's a sunday and I've just got back from a blazing run so do forgive me.

I'm not too interested in getting into party politics. All I'm interested in is raising standards for the end user - the Principal/ Client.

If that rocks the boat with training providers then so be it. As I mentioned before, the actual manner in which, if approved/ agreed, that standards are increased of course remains open to eventual debate.

The bottom line is that currently, standards are unfit for purpose. If we want to see our industry improve then any wording on par with your last para will have to be sucked up in order to see the bigger picture.

Vote of No Confidence in the Security Industry Authority - e-petitions


Thanks.



Rich H
My point is that whilst I share your lack of confidence in the SIA, my current view is that requesting the government to create a "...new body comprising of properly experienced security professionals dedicated to implementing a proper workable fit for purpose training standard that is transparent, impartial and independent..." is not the ideal way of forcing progress in the industry, so I can't put my name to. Were the petition to leave open the door for complete deregulation, I would sign.
 
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
#48
De-regulation?

Interesting approach but that for certain is not going to happen.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 is passed legislation that requires the industry to be regulated.

As such, the only way to move forward is to increase standards.

And the way to do that can be in the form of gaining industry wide support for creating a

"...new body comprising of properly experienced security professionals dedicated to implementing a proper workable fit for purpose training standard that is transparent, impartial and independent...".​

Either join me or watch from from the side lines.

Vote of No Confidence in the Security Industry Authority - e-petitions



Rich H
 

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#49
The Regulatory Reform Act was also passed in 2001. So your way is not the only way at all.

I acknowledge that your way is likely to be better received as it will inevitably lead to more money being taken from those operators, or aspiring operators, in the security industry and given to the public purse.

Deregulation allows the market to force improvements leading to a raised level of competitiveness, higher productivity, and greater efficiency.
 

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#51
SJRS,

That route will simply not work!

Besides, I agree with regulating this industry. For some reason, the security industry attracts muppets and I approve of any measure that will help to regulate and control.

Thanks for your posts though. I'm interested in all points of view.


Cheers
Rich

Vote of No Confidence in the Security Industry Authority - e-petitions
That's fine. I do respect your viewpoint. I'm from a different school of thought is all.

Re: muppets.

You find them everywhere but in deregulated private industries they tend to get rooted out or kept in check. In heavily regulated industries and the public sector they get looked after and often thrive.
 
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
#52
There are two types of people in this industry; the amateur and the professional.

The amateur does things because 'he feels like it". The professional does things because its in his interest as being a professional.

My interest is in changing the mindset of the amateur through raising the basic standards of that individual. If training providers are not keen then on such due to their own selfish business/ profit making priorities then so be it. If the individual is not keen on it due to his/ her own selfish reasons then so be it.

If standards are not increased then everyone entering the industry will be an amateur and the number of such will far outweigh those that are professional.

I don't want to work in an industry full of amateurs. I don't want trainers of my industry producing an amateurish course.

What I want to see is professionalism throughout. Now, is that too much to ask?

Hence the petition:


Vote of No Confidence in the Security Industry Authority - e-petitions




Rich H
 

Scab

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
3,062
Likes
1,249
#53
Deregulation allows the market to force improvements leading to a raised level of competitiveness, higher productivity, and greater efficiency.
Are you serious? This is the security industry - it ran to minimums before the SIA and it runs to minimums post-SIA. There were companies using cut price SIA compliant staff type advertising before licensing was even rolled out. There were companies putting anyone and everyone into a tie with in some cases, no training whatsoever in a variety of rolls. Even the door supervisor courses which ran prior to the SIA were heavily abused with regards compliance to the standards they ran to and so you had non-speaking licensed guys working before national licensing.

Deregulation would do only one thing in this industry - abolish the minimum and there will be no standard; which is precisely what many will work to. Back will be the days of lumps in ill fitting suits. Not to suggest that there still are not a few about, but some things did change for the better with the SIA, even the point on walts and suit fillers not existing pre SIA is incorrect, some of the biggest arseholes and numpties I met were on the self professed 'elite' circuit; which was jobs for the boys. Irrespective of your background, aptitude, knowledge or physical characteristics if you knew the right guy you got a job.
 

Pythagamedes

Full Registered User
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
12
Likes
0
#54
Hi Richard, Been a long time Bro.

Are you able to make the petition more specific for weight purposes? Needs more meat Bro!

After 33 years in the industry, I went back to boot camp (SIA CP Course, didnt need a licence in a corporate environment but do now). I am glad to say your book was mentioned and shown to many as a good standard, which I also endorse. Sadly, the market is being watered down and many of the better learners really have no chance in the industry unless they work up from RST etc. There are too many who believe that having completed the course that they will get employment as a CPO.

Kindred respects always, aye,

Martin

PS You kindly gave me a copy of your 1st publication. Having seen the 2nd, it is so much better! Well done!
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
#55
Hi Pythagamedes?

How do you mean - 'more specific for weight purposes'?

View attachment 5753

The above had to be kept short and to the point.

You're right though about the market being watered down.

BTW, there is only one publication?!


Cheers
Rich
 

SJRS

Full Registered User
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
94
Likes
2
#56
Are you serious? This is the security industry - it ran to minimums before the SIA and it runs to minimums post-SIA. There were companies using cut price SIA compliant staff type advertising before licensing was even rolled out. There were companies putting anyone and everyone into a tie with in some cases, no training whatsoever in a variety of rolls. Even the door supervisor courses which ran prior to the SIA were heavily abused with regards compliance to the standards they ran to and so you had non-speaking licensed guys working before national licensing.

Deregulation would do only one thing in this industry - abolish the minimum and there will be no standard; which is precisely what many will work to. Back will be the days of lumps in ill fitting suits. Not to suggest that there still are not a few about, but some things did change for the better with the SIA, even the point on walts and suit fillers not existing pre SIA is incorrect, some of the biggest arseholes and numpties I met were on the self professed 'elite' circuit; which was jobs for the boys. Irrespective of your background, aptitude, knowledge or physical characteristics if you knew the right guy you got a job.
Hello Scab.

I know it's not popular in this day and age but my philosophy is that left to its own devices, the cream rises to the top. Meaning while there is a demand for high calibre security professionals, it will be supplied by those trained by high calibre training providers. Standards will evolve by necessity. What I mean by that is that when security standards increase, those who wish to defeat that security adapt and overcome, and the security evolves to negate that, and so on. Basic Darwinism.

At the other end of the scale where customers just want bodies to comply with the small print on their insurance premiums, let them crack on. If their premiums start going up because their stuff keeps getting nicked they'll sharpen up their acts and upgrade. If what they've got is working, they'll stick with that.

To me, anything else is just taxation and restriction of trade. Meddling with the natural order.
 

SCT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
948
#57
Hello Scab.

I know it's not popular in this day and age but my philosophy is that left to its own devices, the cream rises to the top. Meaning while there is a demand for high calibre security professionals, it will be supplied by those trained by high calibre training providers. Standards will evolve by necessity. What I mean by that is that when security standards increase, those who wish to defeat that security adapt and overcome, and the security evolves to negate that, and so on. Basic Darwinism.

At the other end of the scale where customers just want bodies to comply with the small print on their insurance premiums, let them crack on. If their premiums start going up because their stuff keeps getting nicked they'll sharpen up their acts and upgrade. If what they've got is working, they'll stick with that.

To me, anything else is just taxation and restriction of trade. Meddling with the natural order.
i like the sentiment and I wish you were right, but I think you're wrong. Standards are important. Richard is right, although the SIA is crap, it is more than exists in many other other countries. Walters, wannabes and fantasists are not unique to the UK, the world is full of them and the security industry, IMO, is a toilet and the only thing that rises to the top in a toilet is a turd (usually one that was on the balcony) :)
 

Scab

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
3,062
Likes
1,249
#58
Hello Scab.

I know it's not popular in this day and age but my philosophy is that left to its own devices, the cream rises to the top. Meaning while there is a demand for high calibre security professionals, it will be supplied by those trained by high calibre training providers. Standards will evolve by necessity. What I mean by that is that when security standards increase, those who wish to defeat that security adapt and overcome, and the security evolves to negate that, and so on. Basic Darwinism.

At the other end of the scale where customers just want bodies to comply with the small print on their insurance premiums, let them crack on. If their premiums start going up because their stuff keeps getting nicked they'll sharpen up their acts and upgrade. If what they've got is working, they'll stick with that.

To me, anything else is just taxation and restriction of trade. Meddling with the natural order.
Like SCT, I too wish you were correct on all counts - but this industry proves time and time again to be incapable (generally of course) to operating in a professional and quality focused manner. It is all about the shareholders and money. I agree that there will be a small percentage of companies that offer a good service (not at the expense of the employee) and do well but the majority - the vast majority does not work like that but will get the same vast majority of the business.

The taxation point; now this one has been done to death. The SIA are not a stealth (or overt) tax on anything. As a QUANGO they are bound by treasury guidelines on not making a profit and where they do it must be invested into their tasking. It is also the case that the security industry not only has some of the lightest regulation in the country, but is among the cheapest also.

And as the majority (many silently) agree we as an industry do need regulation. So us who are self employed or run companies pay or it ourselves - the vast numbers involved in uniformed security get it paid for by their companies. If we do not pay for it as an industry, should the taxpayer? ...Us again?

I am curious though - restriction of trade? How so?
 

abuminyar

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
240
Likes
1
#59
SIA CP training program advise not good?
What is missing?
What is standards for you ?
What kind of standards you are talk about ?
I think Uk private sector CP training have the SAS standards as base point.

Close Protection Training
This is bad ?
Core Learning and Qualifications for a Close Protection Licence

Close Protection Specialist Module
•Session 1: Roles and Responsibilities of the Close Protection Operative
•Session 2: Threat and Risk Assessment
•Session 3: Surveillance Awareness
•Session 4: Operational Planning
•Session 5: Law and Legislation
•Session 6: Interpersonal Skills
•Session 7: Close Protection Teamwork and Briefing
•Session 8: Conduct Reconnaissance
•Session 9: Close Protection Foot Drills
•Session 10: Route Selection
•Session 11: Close Protection Journey Management
•Session 12: Search Procedures
•Session 13: Incident Management
•Session 14: Venue Security

Conflict Management Module
•Session 1: Avoiding Conflict and Reducing Personal Risk
•Session 2: Defusing Conflict
•Session 3: Resolving and Learning from Conflict
•Session 4a: Application of Communication Skills and Conflict Management for Security Guarding and Close Protection

First Aid Training

When applying for your licence you will be required to produce evidence that you have attained a recognised first aid award. You should present your valid first aid certificate to your training provider before you start your training. If you do not have a recognised first aid award you will need to get one in order to get your licence. This is in addition to the minimum 138 hours knowledge and practical skills training.

First aid awards recognised by the SIA are:
•First Aid at Work - 4 day course (HSE approved)
•First Person on Scene (FPOS) Intermediate Award - 30 hours (Edexcel / IHCD)

To avoid costs in paperwork like buying books is possible do this also under British law.

Overseas Qualifications

Overseas Qualifications


If you hold a qualification in security or a security-related discipline obtained overseas you may be exempt from some training. The qualification must be nationally recognised in the country in which you obtained it.

Please e-mail us for advice if you wish to claim exemption. You should present the qualification for the sector you want to work in to the SIA. We will also need to see a copy of the syllabus. We will map your qualification against our SIA competency standard. All documents should be translated into English.

You will be contacted about any training gaps and advised on how to meet the full competency criteria.

Please note: It is important to ensure that training remains current. Therefore, qualifications allowing exemption from the SIA approved training must be no more than three years old, except where otherwise stated.

All overseas applicants will be required to demonstrate that they can communicate in English and that they have attended training in subjects relating to legislation in the UK, as well as communication skills and conflict management.
 

SCT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
948
#60
SIA CP training program advise not good?
What is missing?
What is standards for you ?
What kind of standards you are talk about ?
I think Uk private sector CP training have the SAS standards as base point.

Close Protection Training
This is bad ?
Core Learning and Qualifications for a Close Protection Licence

Close Protection Specialist Module
•Session 1: Roles and Responsibilities of the Close Protection Operative
•Session 2: Threat and Risk Assessment
•Session 3: Surveillance Awareness
•Session 4: Operational Planning
•Session 5: Law and Legislation
•Session 6: Interpersonal Skills
.........blah blah blah
What planet are you on?
 
Top Bottom