Training "certification" and "awards"
- Thread starter CENTRE22
- Start date
I am going through a similar process this side of the Irish sea, looking at accreditation providers for security training. Needless to say, I share your sentiments.
We have the difficult situation where we have two separate licenses on the the same bit of land and a myriad of certification bodies with their own vested interests, and a training curriculum which is below par at best......
The saga continues, but I'd love to be involved in further discussion around new standards etc
We have the difficult situation where we have two separate licenses on the the same bit of land and a myriad of certification bodies with their own vested interests, and a training curriculum which is below par at best......
The saga continues, but I'd love to be involved in further discussion around new standards etc
I am going through a similar process this side of the Irish sea, looking at accreditation providers for security training. Needless to say, I share your sentiments.
We have the difficult situation where we have two separate licenses on the the same bit of land and a myriad of certification bodies with their own vested interests, and a training curriculum which is below par at best......
The saga continues, but I'd love to be involved in further discussion around new standards etc
We have the difficult situation where we have two separate licenses on the the same bit of land and a myriad of certification bodies with their own vested interests, and a training curriculum which is below par at best......
The saga continues, but I'd love to be involved in further discussion around new standards etc
Starlight
Super Moderator
Glad people like the approach.
However, a word of caution. I've tried to drive/steer this approach several time over the past few years, and each time it has ended in some fairly catestrophic results for me personally.
As I said before, the punters and paymasters will go for the path of least resistance. In other words, the punter will cut corners and the paymasters will accept lower standards because that represents lower day rates. For both of those groups, it's a win win situation.
In the mean time, experienced Paramedics/OSM's like myself, are kicked into touch.
My offer of assistance still stands though.
Incidentally, ALL TP's claim to be different. It's what defines them from the others. It's a bit like the pub grub sign 'good food sold here'. They're unlikely to say 'below average food sold here'. TP's are the same. 'we supply the unique standard that you need'. They'd never say 'we're below par and only after your money'.
To continue the theme, the proof is in the pudding.
Fixed that a bit for you!
Now, to make a more pertinent point:
CP TP's are offering courses accredited by education sector awarding bodies. If you are delivering those courses you are obliged by their terms and conditions which are reflective of current law. Current equality laws say no one can be excluded on any basis from the educational system. This is why the situation exists that a partial sighted, triple amputee who is morbidly obese and on oxygen can, on paper, not be excluded from undertaking a CP course. Now in theory that person should not be able to complete the practical aspects of the course on account of their health. But most TP's pay little heed to this and fewer still would offer this potential student the guidance they'd need to reconsider their aspirations.
That extreme example however does not take away from the fact that if you were to implement attendance prerequisites with the intention of excluding students on any educationally accredited courses (including your own) you leave yourself open to action by your awarding body.
You also leave yourself open to being taken to court under those equality laws.
Last edited:
Merit Training
Longterm Registered User
This.
We have to have prerequisites for most of our courses. It bugs the hell out of us when other medical TPs will except anyone on their mid to high level courses. Prospective students will call and ask why we don't also accept non EMTs for our paramedic course or worse, accept a 5 day EMT as a prereq for paramedic.
Also, for our EMT course which is 20 days and 5 days of clinicals. Most EMT courses in the UK offer a 5 day EMT without clinicals and charge £395 for it.
Students go with the other providers. We lose money but keep integrity.
D
Deleted member 33
Guest
No - you don't big boy!
I have researched this aspect in some detail and if I may, here is an extract from a certain book...
"Close Protection Medical & Physical Fitness Assessments
It remains an understatement that both medical and physical fitness are not given any consideration in relation to their importance and relevance in a ‘fit for purpose’ commercial environment*. Simply put – no standards exist whatsoever. Suffice to say that the client rightly expects that if such services are obtained, especially those that are licensed by a government regulatory body, that they are indeed of the required standard and that no ‘testing’ by them should be conducted. After all, why should they? They have purchased a service, why then should they be enforced to conduct tests to ensure the service provided is the service they expect? Additionally, the employer (contracted service provider) remains disinterested due to the time and costs involved in testing and if the individual meets government licensing requirements then they are simply not compelled to test. UK commercial CP training providers adopt this mentality, manifested by the SIA. They excuse the lack of physical training on their courses to “shortage of time†and that “personal fitness remains the responsibility of the individual.†Suffice to say – the reason that many commercial instructors are not of the required standard may be the turning cog for this outlook!
Important to note, that the SIA had failed to include any form of minimum medical and physical fitness standards in their licensing requirements. The SIA stated that:
“..These physical and mental disabilities and impairments are for the sole
responsibility of the employer and/ or client to determine.â€
SIA: 2006
...and proceeded to award an SIA license to anyone with the above. This is in addition to the lack of implementing any minimum age to work other than that stipulated as the default of 18 for any license for all sectors.
The situation remains one of a debacle. No one implements standards. The regulator responsible for implementing standards not only fails to apply the very requirements to create a ‘minimum standard’ but also fails to implement any standard. Simply put – no minimum standards exist whatsoever. This ‘passing the buck’ attitude illustrates a total disregard by all those involved and results in a poor result of a student and an unfit for purpose service provided for the end user – the client and the Principal. The SIA state that problems would exist as a government regulator as implementing minimum medical and fitness standards will be –
“Infringing on a grey area that will cause employment rights and legality issues...â€
SIA: 2006 & 2010
The Equality and Human Rights Commission works within the scope of the Employment Rights and Equality Act 2010 providing information, advice and guidance on areas regarding discrimination and human rights. According to them and in relation to the statement made by the SIA, this is indeed not the case. Although under section 60 of the Equality Act 2010 it is unlawful for an employer to ask pre-employment health questions there are a few circumstances that an employer IS allowed to ask for medical information.
These are:
- Reasonable Adjustment For The Interview Process
- Positive Action
- Occupational Requirements
- National Security
- Function Intrinsic to the Job
- Monitoring
As long as it can be proven that the physical standards implemented, insofar as pass marks for physical repetitions of specific exercises and times over set distances are mapped correctly against the requirements of the job role, then it remains perfectly legal to conduct physical assessments as part of an employment process. As all candidates must attain a pass in set physical assessments there remains no specific discrimination against those physically disabled or impaired.
Further, as an example and interesting to note, every Chauffeur in London carrying a passenger from A to B has to have, by law, a PCO (Public Carriage Office) License. This license, in which a minimum age limit exists at 21 years, deems that the driver has taken a criminal record's check and has a basic knowledge of his way around London. To obtain a PCO license, the chauffeur also has to undertake a medical examination to confirm his level of fitness and capability of doing the job."
I then go on to explain further detail the Drivers Medical Group and their function of establishing whether drivers who have medical conditions are able to satisfy the medical standards required for safe driving.
Make no bones about it, the 'Security Industry' is way behind other job employment standards/ requirements to ensure ability and capability. The SIA, in their 'minimalist approach' has designed a process whereby it does not even come close to the basic requirements of a chauffeur...
Rich H

........oky doky, surely I'm not alone in sitting here now thinking
"...okay then..so how does one go about becoming / registering as an Official Awarding Body because surely as far as self regulating our industry goes a group of peer elected SME's operating (non-profit, ie..other than administration/salary costs all profits are put back into raising industry standards.. now there's a novel idea!) we could not lower the standards currently in place.
Such a body would be well placed to advocate the requirement for the afore mentioned prerequisites and indeed would be the logical starting place to determine the who, why, what, when and where of such requirements as PFA's, MES & Psychometric Evaluations etc..... after all you wouldn't ask a Fishmonger to determine such prerequisites for the employment of Prospective Firefighters or Child Care Professionals so why would you expect a Body with no actual knowledge or experience of our industry to come up with any meaningful or indeed relevant standards?
....on a much more worrying front surely someone else must have noticed Rich H & SCT posting multiple mutual likes!
what the hell is going on..this is not funny, its just scary..the phrase.."Reciprocal Reach'A'Rou...." keeps popping into my frontal lobe!
I liked it better when you ladies were @ Handbags, the Staus Quo has been disrupted and as a result I don't even know which way the water turns when it goes down the bog now!
"...okay then..so how does one go about becoming / registering as an Official Awarding Body because surely as far as self regulating our industry goes a group of peer elected SME's operating (non-profit, ie..other than administration/salary costs all profits are put back into raising industry standards.. now there's a novel idea!) we could not lower the standards currently in place.
Such a body would be well placed to advocate the requirement for the afore mentioned prerequisites and indeed would be the logical starting place to determine the who, why, what, when and where of such requirements as PFA's, MES & Psychometric Evaluations etc..... after all you wouldn't ask a Fishmonger to determine such prerequisites for the employment of Prospective Firefighters or Child Care Professionals so why would you expect a Body with no actual knowledge or experience of our industry to come up with any meaningful or indeed relevant standards?
....on a much more worrying front surely someone else must have noticed Rich H & SCT posting multiple mutual likes!
what the hell is going on..this is not funny, its just scary..the phrase.."Reciprocal Reach'A'Rou...." keeps popping into my frontal lobe!
I liked it better when you ladies were @ Handbags, the Staus Quo has been disrupted and as a result I don't even know which way the water turns when it goes down the bog now!
Rich, sorry , but if I understand correctly, employment considerations and access to learn something are two entirely different things. This would as I understand come back to an employer issue - not one barring access to training. I have the right to go out and learn whatever I want, if I fail to make the grade, therefore be qualified, therefore not be offered a job that is my problem, but my right to try remains.
D
Deleted member 33
Guest
Not so mate,
This was one of the points, in fact, the main point I raised with them - the initial training. The medical/ physical tests/ assessments are there to determine the most effective outcome according to that training provider. If that TP can prove that the tests set are accurately mapped against job function then it is perfectly within their rights to implement such.
After all, this is training for a job function - not leisure.
Your 'right to try' still remains. However, if you fail the pre-requisites/ tests then you're on yer bike.
Rich H
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to congratulate Mick for initiating one of the best threads I've read in a long time.. it seems people really do feel strongly about this subject and the healthy, lively yet mutually respectful debate it has initiated is refreshing to read. Its been a while since I've felt the need to follow a thread with such interest to see who has what input and who are highlighting possible obstacles to be avoided or overcome and who is offering solutions to obstacles / difficulties.. Quite inspiring..
Even Sonny & Cher are holding hands and feeling the love but I'm trying hard not to think too much about that in case I get a Mental Image!!
Even Sonny & Cher are holding hands and feeling the love but I'm trying hard not to think too much about that in case I get a Mental Image!!
For the record: If the collective industry expertise on this forum took the initiative to form an accrediting body whose sole focus would be on high standards of entry, high standards of practice, and high standards of certification, then you'd have a customer right here.
SCT
Security Directors
Sign me up as long as egos are left at the door
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Interesting! So how has this not been pushed as justification for the formal implementation of such tests? And whenever it has been mentioned in the presence of awarding body biff's the idea soundly rebuked with all the rights stuff?
Sound thinking; but I fear it would go the same way as dinosaurs for the reason that there would be very very few who would take up it's tick when they can do it much easier elsewhere. Yes I am a cynic.