1SC Guarding Media Centre.

Whilst having my early morning coffee today at Pret around 08:30 a suspicious package, a suitcase was reported to the police.  The shop manager acted extremely well and called the professionals, “The Police”

A blue people carrier with darkened windows and blue lights turned up containing Starsky and Hutch, 1 female officer and 1 male officer suitably dressed in protective vests and hand cuffs on their belts, all the gear and no idea comes to mind.

The two clowns, sorry, I mean officers, Britain’s first line of defence against terrorism, god help us, rushed in and were directed to the lone suitcase, a possible Improvised Explosive Device (IED) not to worry, the female clown, sorry I mean officer, moved towards the case picked it up and shuck it, were upon myself and another ex-military person looked on in horror.  These two idiots, though young, were clearly not aware of the gravity and the lives they placed in danger.  If this suitcase was an IED this note would not be written as i would be residing with a higher being along with pinkie and perky the two idiots dressed as police officers.

In London there will be numerous hoaxes and callouts for the police to attend and assess, I truly empathise with them but I can’t find the methodology for shaking a  suspicious package or case in advice or text books I’ve ever read and I’ve read many whilst in the military and Security Industry, below is an idea of what you should do but I guess it doesn’t apply to the Mets finest:

Looking around as I do, its obvious our industry is growing, there are men and woman in uniform everywhere, some well dressed some scruffy but what they do have in common is their look of boredom and vacant existence, an expression of what am I doing here!  Whilst our Industry grows it seems we pick anyone for the job stick em in a uniform and throw em on site, I thought we stopped doing this in the eighties, obviously not. Its becoming extremely difficult to get the right calibre of person through the door to interview these days for positions in security, we get hundreds of applicants weekly who frankly I wouldn’t give the time of day too but, employment law states we have to see these bewildered idiots and waste our time and theirs in a process they wouldn’t and couldn’t pass, that is a legible conversation with their trousers in the correct position around their waste.

Price is a major factor as clients want the cheapest rates, understandable, if you just want to meet your insurance criteria clients don’t consider at all the staff they are employing, albeit from a contractor that’s completely over looked, its not their problem, it’s all about the hourly rate, the cheapest rate so let’s look at what makes the rates up or what should be included, here’s an eye opener.

Security staff, your front of house staff, your first line in security should be P.A.Y.E employed, that means they have a steady job a future with steady hours, radical I know! Being employed means staff are not self-employed paying their own tax national insurance, holidays and uniform, yes uniform, this should be factored at around £280 per person/guard, man or woman and everything else in between.  Self employed looks like companies are paying the correct rates but let’s be sensible if you can, their not, and its impossible to compete with them therefore they win the contracts, they go on to provide the level of inadequacy clients have become far to familiar with, its not the guards fault, it’s the expectation of a cheap labour in today’s throw away world.  A major factor in any Security Proposal should be Supervision and Management, this has a financial impact and is usually missed out to save costs.  Staff who are left to their own devices are less productive and become extremely bored very quickly.  Security staff need a purpose a job to do so let’s give them a purpose, its not difficult if you have an overall Aim and Objectives for the service you require, generally this is the root cause and the client hasn’t one.

Living in London as we do, and lucky to do so is quite expensive, I would think a starting rate for any good quality security officer in London to be £12.50 per hour.  The company should employ its staff direct, recruit, screen and train staff to a decent level before deployment, don’t rely upon the so-called training staff receive to gain their SIA license!  Staff should be representative of both the Security Supplier and the client they represent, if not, its gone wrong before you start.  On going training should be at least eight (8) days per year per security officer and this should include, fire, first aid, customer service, actions on different events, site familiarisation, patrolling, the law (theft, burglary, robbery & trespass) and most importantly the site they are employed to protect.

I found myself last weekend telling a Security Officer off for the way he looked, scruffy disheveled and generally vacant.  I caught myself in time before I got to involved after all, he didn’t work for me and it wasn’t my site but it is my Industry and I generally care about the people in my industry the conditions and pay they suffer hence I voice my opinions to anyone who will listen including our governing bodies like the SIA who in my opinion don’t do enough for us.

From my last blog: Tuesday 29/10/2019 it’s now obvious the main focus and anger from survivors and The Grenfell United Group is focussed on those who were brave enough to attend a raging fire, place their own lives in danger and enter a burning building.  Whilst I understand their anger that is, I empathise, their focus and anger should be directed at those responsible for the Tower Block not at those brave men and women who are suffering today who also risked their lives to save the lives of people they didn’t know, the residents of Grenfell.

The report says some of the 72 people who were killed could have been saved if the building was evacuated sooner.  The LFB said it was "disappointed" by some of the criticism of individuals, me too!

The inquiry, which examined what happened on the night of 14 June 2017, concluded that "many more lives" could have been saved if the advice to residents to "stay put" had been abandoned earlier than 02:35 BST.  It said London Fire Brigade's preparations for such a fire were "gravely inadequate". Whilst this might be true to some extent who was responsible for the maintenance of the building and the fact the fire was able to enter the building that should have been sealed from fire?

The brigade's commissioner Dany Cotton, who is due to retire in April 2020, expressed her "deepest sorrow" that firefighters had not been able to save those who died, but said the inquiry had no expert evidence to support its conclusion about evacuating the tower.  It would not have been possible or safe to evacuate residents through a "narrow, smoke-clogged stairwell" with the number of firefighters who would have been available for that task said Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union.