Response from Vernon Coaker

Well, I wasn't prepared for the response Ive had from Mr Coaker, although I should have expected it, being from the Home Office after all.
It was less than enthusiastic to say the least.
All he has done is quote the Private Security Act 2001, and the self-defence 'reasonable force' laws.
I might have just as well got some random person off the street to comment on the letter I sent, I probably would have had a better response to be honest.

The full response from Mr Coaker will be available on the new APSO site once it is back up and running.

Update, kinda...

Ok, so I haven't been updating the blog lately, but there really hasn't been anything to put here.
I still haven't received any reply from my MP. All I have had was a breif email from her secretary saying they were awaiting replies from the SIA etc and would get back to me once they had received them - I know the SIA can drag their heel with things for us, but come on, this is the deputy leader of the house of commons. You'd think they'd have gotten back to her in a matter of days, not months.

I dunno, just getting a bit sick of the entire situation. The SIA are basically a waste of time and space that needs a complete rethink, sooner rather than later.

Self defence?

Ok, so I'm bored. I've just been re-reading the response from Downing Street regards the petition to allow security personnel the use of batons/sprays and handcuffs as standard, to which they basically gave a big no.
I came across a section on the use of reasonable force:

Under the law as it stands a person is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence, to protect another person or property, to prevent crime or to assist in the lawful arrest of a criminal.
What constitutes `reasonable force' will depend upon the circumstances of each case and is a matter for the courts to decide. The courts have held that if a person does only what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary to defend himself or prevent a crime, then that would be potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

Now, the way I read that, if your first instinct when someone pulls a knife/whatever on you whilst not on duty is to punch them full-force in the face, breaking their nose/jaw/whatever else you come into contact with, that would be reasonable force. So in theory, this would be the same if we were on duty at the time this happened, wouldn't it?

As a private citizen, we could defend ourselves in that way and it would be called self defence, however, whilst on duty whether it be in a pub or club, or a retail site, or even in some remote building site, we are seen as having a position of authority, and if we did this to defend ourselves on duty, we would be considered as thugs who beat up people rather than attempt to disarm them without having to resort to violence.

It's a very grey area, but until it is clarified we are going to be constantly on a knife-edge (no pun intended) if someone tries to attack us in any way shape or form, wondering if we would be sued etc if we seemingly go too far.

Gordon, get your ass into gear and allow us all to defend ourselves properly. The criminals use weapons on us, so why can't we use 'defensive' weapons on them?

Followup: Security officer killed on duty

Last night it came to my attention that the officer 'killed' on duty in Bristol on Saturday, had in fact died from natural causes.
Obviously I cant speculate as to the actual cause of his death until confirmation is released by the police, but it still does't change my comments regarding the issuing of batons and sprays to officers to be able to defend ourselves.

Petition Time

There is a new petition on the 10 Downing Street website, asking for an investigation into the Security Industry Authority, due to the fact that applications are taking longer than they should, being unable to contact the SIA by any means, and the fact that because of these and other issues the SIA is creating unemployment in the industry.

Ive signed it, as have others already - I fully recommend that every single security officer in the country sign it, as unless large numbers of officers do so, it will go unheard like every other attempt at getting the government to investigate the industry sofar.

Click here for the petition

I forgot to tell everyone I have a poor memory....

I knew there was something I was supposed to do yesterday.
I emailed my MP, Helen Goodman about the lack of contact I've had regarding both emails I have sent to her, advising that I was given a timescale for a reply by the person I spoke to at her constituency office, so I expected a reply, and have yet to receive one.

But I forgot to mention it on here. I know it's only a day late, but if I start forgetting to post, this page will go quiet, and the information wont be kept updated - I know what I'm like for things like this.

Whether this will speed up the process or not is a completely different matter.

I heard it through the grapevine...

..aka securityoracle forums lol.
I've heard today, whether it's just rumour or not I'm not fully aware, although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, that when The SIA moved their callcentre operations from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool at the end of 2007, they reduced the number of incoming call lines to the callcentre staff because 'if there are less lines, then less people will be on hold, removing frustration at being on hold for so long'.
Now, having worked in a callcentre in the past as a calltaking spacemonkey, thats just bad practice.
If the account I worked on (can't mention what one, still covered by official secrets act) had that approach, the callcentre would have lost the contract within weeks. As it was, calls kept on hold, even if we were placing them on hold to find out some information, were charged to our company by the second, so if we had put people on hold for as long as we have been kept on hold with the SIA since its inception, the bill would have run into the millions by now.

I've just had a quick google for information on this, and instead I found the press release from the SIA regarding the £23 Million 4 year contract they signed with BT in 2003 for them to create the original callcentre and application processing centre in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but lo and behold, nothing about the move to Liverpool.

Something else I have just found is some House of Commons questions from June 2006, stating that the callcentre used to average around 1000 calls per day, but during March 2006 the callrate was four times that, increasing to around 8000 calls on 20th March 2006. The result of this was the increase of incoming call lines, and employment of more operators.

So what the hell happened?
We went from having few callcentre staff, to having more than enough (if we go by the House of Commons report), then they move sites and REDUCE the amount of incoming lines, to 'remove frustration'.
Where do they get these people!?!
If anything, it increases frustration at not being able to get through in the first place, then once we're on hold we're on for a minimum of half an hour before getting through to someone who hasn't got a clue.

Ok, rant over.... for now, but it's just going to raise it's head more and more.

Bad English

I was looking at the SIA's website the other night, to find some information for a new member on the Security Oracle forum, and it struck me just how poor the information was on what activities needed licences etc.
So Ive decided, Im going to sit down and translate from SIA into english, everything on their site which relates to licensing, and maybe other sections too.
It may take a while, but they dont seem to care whether we understand their descriptions of things or not, and when we contact them to find out, they just refer us back to the site for information, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyone willing to assist???