SkyBridge Security - Modular SIA Close Protection courses: study at your own pace

S

SkyBridge

Full Registered User
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Hi Guys,

We have just introduced new modular scheme for our courses so instead of taking 20 days off work in one go, you can study at your own pace. We still provide the required guided contact learning hours but you can attend seminars in blocks, including evenings and weekends. Your payment is spread over 4 modules but the study time can be a weekend at a time - we'll structure it so that it's suitable to you. If you are not in the country and you miss one or a few, you will catch up later with other groups. This is perfect for those of you still serving (and if you are currently with HM Forces, you will also get a 20% discount - this is valid for all our courses!!!) or those with busy work schedules. Also, we believe in top quality education only and we care about our reputation, so you will get the same knowledge and experience as students on our full time courses. See more on our website http://www.skybridge-security.com/and don't hesitate to contact us with any questions! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
'Top quality education/ training and the words Close Protection Modular Course do not go hand in hand'.​




Rich H
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich, thanks for the comment but I would argue that your opinion is debatable. You are actually giving people more chances to absorb information. The modules are structured in a way that you have all training that has to be continuous put into a single block, so it is not a random selection of sessions. This is not just a drill course, is it? There is quite a lot of brain work and close protection is predominantly about planning, at least in our version. As for the quality - this is why are courses are 20 days and not 14-15 like so many others on the market!
 
SkyBridge,

Thanks for entering this into a debate. I find it is an interesting outlook a TP has insofar as the quality of the end result of a student conducting a modular style course as opposed to one whereby the student is absorbing information continually with no breaks or distractions.

Many TP's will profess that CP is not a 'black art' in the manner in which the role is employed. Of course, at the lowest standard, if one can call it that, that the SIA has implemented, this may be the case. However, there are ways to conduct CP operations and there are simply wrong ways. An aspiring candidate who is wishing to embark on a career in CP/ specialist security must grasp the fundamental aspects of the nature of risk to threats. In some instances, this may indeed be a huge learning curve and the learning process must respect the requirements of the job roles and function as an effective tool so that information is 'ingrained' into the student and not merely a few jots in a notebook.

To break up a course involving training and learning a specialist role waters down this process. The building blocks to the end result on the street are simply ineffective and not conducive to the skill sets to be learnt.

The implementation of licensing CP and the terrible standards the SIA has introduced has seen a massive influx of training providers clammering on the ladder to sell the tick box course of the 15 or so core competencies. New angles to sell and compete have introduced modular style and distance learning courses.

For Close Protection?! Let's get real here.



Rich H
 
Well, thankfully we are not offering a distance learning course :) Will totally agree with you about TPs offering anything to cover 15 competences, including courses over 10 days with prices that won't even cover the fees of a semi-decent instructor. We have, however, a wealth of experience and numerous years of teaching to back up any of the statements. I suppose it is a personal opinion as we are, as a company, are convinced that we can offer a modular course without losing on the quality and the 'ingraining' part works even better with some thinking breaks and additional reading that is sent to students and everything is revised and repeated constantly. I don't actually know who else offers modular courses, haven't really looked into it, but it might be that their idea of 'modular' is very different from ours. I understand your point of view, it has a good ground, but as I said, I am convinced that there are ways to overcome the problems you are desribing.
 
I don't believe that there are ways to overcome the problems associated with modular style learning. The problem lays in the learning process itself, not the actual content.

If I was a betting man, which I'm not, but if I were, then I would hazard a calculated guess that in reality, and possibly behind closed doors, you would of course agree with me. However, the commercialities of business and when that business involves specialist areas that have been conducted by specialist units of the military and police, infringe on end result qualities it becomes a compromise of profit over morals, ethics and standards. Business has a need to develop profit and the knock on effect is detriment to the purpose of its aims.

You simply cannot have a fit for purpose operator on the streets with the current SIA standards. To water this down further in creating a modular style course is focusing on completely the wrong direction. The compromise of profit at the shortfall of standards does nothing for the individual or more importantly, the end user - the Principal.

Call modular courses what you like. Describe them in the glossiness you need too. The result is by no means any angle to advertise but on the contrary, underlines a lack of appreciation and respect for this industry sector, with which you are certainly not alone.



Rich H
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich, opinions will remain opinions.... No, I wouldn't agree with you behind closed doors at all. Where you are right is in saying that SIA standards are so poor that you cannot produce a fit operator with those standards. The way I see the SIA course is an introduction to the industry. How can you teach someone to be a capable operative in 20 (or as some companies do in 14) days???? This is the main problem. People come out of the course with their heads completely scrambled and most novices are completely unable to process about 60% of the information, it is too much too fast. You and I have both gone through a very intense 6 weeks course after quite a number of years of serving and a lot of previous experience. I was an instructor on those courses as well and as you know, there are only 2 organisations in this country who run these 6 weeks courses - one is yours, another one is mine. We were in a group of like-minded people who had a lot of experience and were ready to accummulate this additional knowledge and skill. And SIA is requesting us to teach complete newcomers in 2 weeks??? With no experience in the industry and no understanding of it at all??? This is why it is an introduction. You just cannot teach people to be a CPO in 2 weeks, full stop! I run my course over 220 guided learning hours and not 140-150, as suggested. And still, people who come to work for me after these courses don't come anywhere near the Principal - they start by washing cars and absorbing what they see around them. I have done not less CP work than you did (have a look on my profile as I did on yours) and I think in principle our opinions on the quality of training are identical. So, originally I have developed my own modular course to give people an opportunity of learning slowly without breaking their head studying to pass the exam (which is another joke). I find that teaching modularly has helped many of my students in the past to achieve better results and the end product is of a higher quality. I cater for every individual and have a personal chat with every single student before enrolling them on a course to identify their level and the best approach. So I think we will agree to disagree on this one because I have my vision, you have yours, but we are both after a top quality product, I understand that. It is actually nice to hear from someone as passionate about the industry as I am and someone who is equally frustrated with SIA requirements.
 
Opinions do of course, vary. However, what I find hard to understand is someone with experience as yourself remaining quite happy to become part of a terrible process. Not only that, but become an integral part to the extent of producing an unfit for purpose standard on the streets.

An 'Introduction to CP' the course maybe but that same course provides a license to work on the streets in the full capacity that that employment entails. Whether you would only have that person washing cars - others would have as a BG. The crux of the matter here is that the important skill sets of CP such as Reaction to Attack, Driving and Unarmed Combat have, in the words of the SIA, been left to the discretion of the employer.

What we have are TP's including your very own produce individuals who WILL be employed as BG's either on the streets of the UK or in high risk environments. Terrible standards being churned out by UK PLC. I would have hoped that people like yourself would have more personal pride in what they do and how they do it. I don't mean this of course to be slating you or your company but am highlighting a very important fact that commercial training providers are quite willing to ignore the concept or proper fit for purpose standards on the back of calling something an 'Introduction'.

You either do something properly or you don't do it at all. To become part of a bad process is a way to selling yourself to the industry. Where do you then draw the line?

At present, a school leaver who is obese, gets out of breath walking up a flight of stairs, who doesn't have full movement in his limbs, who is half blind, half deaf and who cannot drive CAN attend a CP cse, pass and become a BG on the streets of the UK.

Is that fit for purpose?

Of course, no doubt you will state that you outline the realities of the job role and what is required to any aspiring student and that without a driving license they will not attend your course. Every other TP I have spoken to does as well strangely enough.

I do see your point but my opinion and personal stance on the issue is that I would not want to associate myself with any of the muppetism in the industry whatsoever. I simply could not whore myself to the industry simply for profit when I know it is wrong.

Horses for courses as they say.


Rich H
 
Well, Rich, where do you draw the line, as you say? Then we should all get together and organise an anti-government protest and refuse to teach. But what will we achieve? People less qualified will take our place and the standard will drop even deeper... I was among the people who refused to be a part of the team writing the SIA course when I was offered and I refused to do anything with the SIA for many years and so what happened? We, the proud professionals, have lost out. I now think that the most efficient way to change the industry is not to ignore it but to improve it on an individual level.

Anyway, this is a deeply philosophical issue which we won't resolve on this forum unless we give up our day jobs and carry on disputing for the next year. The point is that the government has suggested a course, and whether we like it or not, people will go on it and will get their licenses. And yes, you can't discriminate against a half-blind half-deaf obese teenager who just got his driving license because it is against the law... And it is pathetic. So in this political situation, at least we can try to maintain some sort of standard by bringing the best what we can and by teaching to the best of our ability. And, yes, I make sure I spend enough time explaining to our students that it is an 'introductory course' and they shouldn't think they are now fit for the job but sure, it is their choice whether to listen to me or not. Let's hope that companies hiring into hostile areas will have some common sense and will not a hire a newcomer just because they want to cut down the costs.

I think we are both trying to improve the standards, we are only doing it in different ways. I was where you are now and I changed my approach, that's all it is. But hey, horses for courses, as you say...

Best,

Christopher
 
Chris,

I won't be changing my approach as I don't believe in the other way of - 'if you can't beat them join them'!

I'm still doing what I can to change the NOS but this can only come about from within and not as a result of protest or lobbying.

Good luck with your venture though. I think you'll need a little.



Rich H
 
Rich and Chris

I've been reading the comments from you both with interest. Reviewing your differing opinions and rationally weighing up both sides of the debate. I don't know if you or anyone else has noticed, but there is common ground to both of your arguments. The length of some of your sentences are friggin phenominal !!!

Come on fellas, proper punctuation is not the work of the devil, nor is it the science of the rocket :p
 
Rich H said:
Chris,

I won't be changing my approach as I don't believe in the other way of - 'if you can't beat them join them'!

I'm still doing what I can to change the NOS but this can only come about from within and not as a result of protest or lobbying.

Good luck with your venture though. I think you'll need a little.



Rich H
Click to expand...


Its not just the content, or lack thereof of the NOS Rich, its also the hours it is delivered in. You could have a the NOS perfect and surpassing any other standard - but if the powers that be decree it can be taught in 150 hours, thats what TP's will deliver it in and not a second more. In ten days with students running 15 hour days (except they don't of course).

Aside that, I agree that modular is not a way forward. We need consistancy and flowing in the training. If we want to make it easier for students to absorb, give them more time to do so, like a return to the four week courses that existed prior to the SIA.

Then we can actually practice something too.
 
Last edited:
It remains a balance, or rather priority, between standards and profit. A business is after all, a business and the aim hence, is profit. In order to create better standards the TP will be cutting of its nose despite its face insofar as the competition.

In siding with SkyBridge, they do have a very difficult task. However, are we to name things as 'Introductions' to soften the blow or do we stand for what is right for the role and implement a proper fit for purpose standard that no other TP does?

If you're a business it depends on financial backbone, time, effort and the willingness to uphold the professionalism that this industry so demands. If you're aim is a fast buck then this of course is of no interest.

As far as time covering the ground is Scab, this is all part of standards, standards, standards.



Rich H
 
if we name it an introduction to CP, it should not be delivering a license to practise at the end of it. Change the name we might, unless there is then a proper CP course to do as a follow up, the introduction will be the only course available and thus, not actually an introduction only!
 
Wouldn't it make sense if there was an introduction course granting some type of a beginners lisense which would only allow work under supervision in a team so that people would actually acquire work experience on a job under secure supervision of highly qualified professionals? Then there could be an advanced course for another 2-3 weeks teaching to be a team leader, work in high risk environment, etc.? This would make more sense but is probably not applicable to the commercial world and will never be approved by the government...
 
SkyBridge,

Not applicable? More likely - not viable or indeed, sensible. 'On the job training/ experience is not the place for CP ops. The TL and others have enough to do than babysit a newbie - and why should they?

This industry never ceases to amaze me. The goal posts are forever moving, standards are forever being reviewed and yet still fall far short. What for? So that business can increase their purchase on profit angles.

Beginners license Chris? Come on now.



Rich H
 
Whatever, Rich. Just trying to suggest options. I train guys who come to me and I babysit them and eventually they either become professional or they never make it in the industry because they are incapable and they are being told so. At least I maintain my standards for my team. Are you trying to suggest that someone comes to work for you after 2-3 weeks training with no previous experience and you will trust them with your life? Whatever we say, 150 or even 220 hours is not enough to produce a capable operator and that's the bottom line. Without additional 'on the job' training these guys are just the beginners... Anyway, got to go now. As I said, you are always welcome to our office for a personal debate. Have a good day. Chris
 
Back
Top