Guess what...this is true, in a sense.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 33
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 33

Guest
Due to cost cutting the Met cannot really afford to provide protection to visiting heads of state & other VIP's to the UK. They have looked to the private sector as a feasibility study and guess what - they have drawn the conclusion that the standards in the commercial world are (wait for it) - unfit for purpose. (Mmmmm, something tells me the book has got round )

Two aspects in particular were the lack of Advanced Driving and Physical Intervention.

Well, stone the crows - I told the SIA about this in 2006. Sometimes my head is in my hands too damm much.

VIP GUN GUARDS MAY GO PRIVATE; EXCLUSIVE. - Free Online Library



Rich H
 
Priceless, absolutely priceless!!
So essentially the lads who go around with the SIA, inspecting the guys who are licensed by the SIA, and prosecute the guys who are not licensed..........wait for it......Think the whole thing is a shambles!!

Who'd a thunk it?????
 
VIP Gun guards? What media mong wrote that headline... Apart from the insinuation that it is the armed protection looking at being farmed out to public sector! So the government is going to rewrite firearms laws? I think not.

But then as has been said, the idea of most of the private sector guarding government types as the police do, even with police firearms support is one giant recipe for disaster on a monumental scale. They'd have a better idea getting the GCS drivers on the appropriate courses and letting them get on with it.
 
Having dealt with the police on many occasions I can confirm that the public sector is unfit for purpose too. This is just the Met angling for a budget increase. Jumping up and down saying "I told you so, I told you so" in support of their assertions is a clear demonstration that the real intent of what they're saying has sailed well over your head.
 
That is a bold assertion based upon our responses; SJRS... Given the levels of privatisation going on and that private support to public sector in the security industry has been spoken of since the conception of the SIA... Or did that point about the SIA being conceived sail over your head?

Food for thought.
 
The Met's Physical Intervention training is dreadful. The fact that they have found even lower standards in the private sector is a depressing testament to the industry as a whole.
 
SJRS - Agreed but the Met are probably trying to prevent, or even reverse, a budget cut rather than push for an increase.

Centre22 - Why do you say the training is dreadful? I appreciate that the standard is pretty low but it's probably fit for purpose. Cop's may get into the odd scrape from time to time but thankfully it's not every day of the week, despite what we see on tv. It's also scaled depending on role so prot guys get an awful lot more training and exposure than say a PCSO.
 
Let me re-phrase that. The training isn't dreadful, a lot of Staff Protection Instructors are excellent at their job. The material they are given to teach is dreadful, important distinction. I worked with staff protection teams in the South East for about three years, just before they standardized all of the material and stopped using contract instructors.

I have the Met's Training Manual in a drawer, and it reads like a bad 1960's self-defence book, which is probably what it is. It is so unbelievably sanitised, for fear of repercussions, that it has rendered itself worthless. I offered to re-write it and re-train their team, completely free of charge, but that didn't go down well at all with those responsible for producing the guidelines.

Several of my friends are still in role. They use their own money to seek outside instruction, in order to find something of worth to teach their staff. I think that's a fairly conclusive verdict on their view of the material.
 
CENTRE22 said:
The Met's Physical Intervention training is dreadful. The fact that they have found even lower standards in the private sector is a depressing testament to the industry as a whole.
Click to expand...

That was easy though -

...There isn't any.



Rich H
 
SJRS - Having actually been in the Police for a full career, and not just 'having dealt with the police in many occasions', I would have to disagree. The level of 'control and Restraint' training is, in my experience, commensurate and appropriate with the requirements of the duties accorded to different roles within the service. I do not think the General Public would appreciate it if even more time/staffing was given over to training (be that C&R, Law, Driving etc.). A balance needs to be made between operational time and training time and I believe the Police have it about right. The level of competence could, of course, be improved upon, but that would be to the detriment of the service given, i.e. more training resulting in lower operational availability.
 
My point is that this is really an issue of budgets, empire protection, and profits - not capability. The competency issue is only being brought up because the MET are desperate. Blurting out what amounts to "G4S are crap, look at the Olympics fiasco. Give them the job of protecting the PM and he'll get killed before elevenses", and producing a copy of the mandatory SIA syllabus to build their defence around is pretty feeble stuff.

You can find crap in the public sector, you can find crap in the private sector, and the polar opposite, but it's a red herring to start discussing it here. It diverts from the real issue. Which is: for the decision makers, if we pass the VIP protection job over to the private side, what's in it for us, and is it worth it?
 
I don't believe that is the case in this instance SJRS.

Everything I have heard from inside sources is that the process has been genuine and that the feasibility study had shown the private sector to be inadequate, as we all know. It has not been the case of them raising the issues with the private sector as a result of them wishing to protect their ivory castle but that the study genuinely showed that ineptness of the current standards in the private sector.

let us not be confused as to the actual scale of this though. The study was not for the purposes of the entire Met Prot teams being replaced but to add/ enhance capability during those periods for visiting VIP's to the UK - NOT the PM, other MP's or Royalty.



Rich H
 
Rich H said:
I don't believe that is the case in this instance SJRS.

Everything I have heard from inside sources is that the process has been genuine and that the feasibility study had shown the private sector to be inadequate, as we all know. It has not been the case of them raising the issues with the private sector as a result of them wishing to protect their ivory castle but that the study genuinely showed that ineptness of the current standards in the private sector.

let us not be confused as to the actual scale of this though. The study was not for the purposes of the entire Met Prot teams being replaced but to add/ enhance capability during those periods for visiting VIP's to the UK - NOT the PM, other MP's or Royalty.



Rich H
Click to expand...

Okay. So if we hypothetically take them at face value for a moment. Do you agree with them that the private sector is currently incapable of producing personnel who are up to the job of augmenting the Met protection teams?
 
SJRS said:
Okay. So if we hypothetically take them at face value for a moment. Do you agree with them that the private sector is currently incapable of producing personnel who are up to the job of augmenting the Met protection teams?
Click to expand...

Unless you pick those individuals who are 'ex' those 3 gov CP units then that is a resounding YES!

Absolutely I do.



Rich H
 
"Blurting out what amounts to "G4S are crap, look at the Olympics fiasco. Give them the job of protecting the PM and he'll get killed before elevenses", and producing a copy of the mandatory SIA syllabus to build their defence around is pretty feeble stuff."

SJRS - I personally don't think this is a feeble argument at all. G4S are a business that will cut costs in any way they can to maximise profits. So NO, I don't think they can be trusted to provide ANY kind of front line policing role. I know some guys who work for G4S and they are top blokes but there's no guarantee that you will get them.
 
Rich H said:
Unless you pick those individuals who are 'ex' those 3 gov CP units then that is a resounding YES!

Absolutely I do.



Rich H
Click to expand...

So people who are ex those units aren't capable of bringing what they know into the private sector to build a training package that can produce better quality operators than they were and evolve the profession? If that is the case, why is it the case? It's not the case in any other walk of life. What are you doing wrong?
 
SJRS said:
So people who are ex those units aren't capable of bringing what they know into the private sector to build a training package that can produce better quality operators than they were and evolve the profession? If that is the case, why is it the case? It's not the case in any other walk of life. What are you doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Its not a case of doing anything 'wrong'.

The commercial world insofar as CP training is concerned is dictated by profit margins, business sense and marketability.

If a process remains primarily grounded upon the end result such as the CP license in this instance and the competition produces a 13-17 day course at x amount then to produce anything that surpasses this in terms of content and duration becomes a process of biting of your nose despite your face.

It is a market force situation that would simply not work to any great extent. The simple number crunching maths dictates this.



Rich H
 
I don't disagree in principle but I think you're generalising the issue. In this instance we're looking at a very specific role involving relatively few personnel.

Let me put it another way:

Could you, or other people you know in the private sector, train people from scratch and make them fit for purpose if a sufficient budget was made available?
 
SJRS said:
I don't disagree in principle but I think you're generalising the issue. In this instance we're looking at a very specific role involving relatively few personnel.

Let me put it another way:

Could you, or other people you know in the private sector, train people from scratch and make them fit for purpose if a sufficient budget was made available?
Click to expand...

Yep.

But it would involve a stringent selection process of ensuring that the individual was suitable for the role in the first place.


Are you up for putting down the readies then? :)



Rich H
 
Back
Top