The Johnson-Malthouse Debate

SMT Online’s Editor Brian Sims offers his opinions on Boris Johnson standing down as chairman of the MPA, and looks ahead to IFSEC 2010.

Years from now, Wednesday 27 January may well go down as a Red Letter Day for the Metropolitan Police.

Barely 24 hours after London’s crime-fighting ‘service’ – it used to be a ‘force’, but we seem to have gone all pc in recent times (if you’ll pardon the pun) – had eulogised over Project Genesius, another constitutional crisis was heading New Scotland Yard’s way with the news that Boris Johnson is standing down as chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

The tousle-haired Tory Boy told The London Assembly that, although the Service “is doing a fantastic job” and he’s “very content that crime is coming down in the Capital”, he felt it was the right time to stand aside.

Johnson, of course, became the first London Mayor to take on the chairmanship of the MPA – in October 2008 – and was quick to lap up the plaudits for playing some part in The Teflon Don finally relinquishing his lot as Met Commissioner after a series of heinous political and tactical blunders.

Positive development or poisoned chalice?

Several commentators – myself included – have declared themselves somewhat ill at ease with this latest development.

When Johnson first occupied Mayoral office, he was only too willing to “take personal charge” of the Authority and make crime reduction a key plank of his tenure.

Now, it looks to many as though Johnson’s desire to “leave the fine detail” on crime mitigation to others at a time of much change among the policing ranks (and with the whiff of reform in the air) is something of a climbdown on the pledge he made to Londoners all those months ago.

That said, he has been swift to point out that his working relationship with Sir Paul Stephenson, the current Met Commissioner, is as “robust” as it has always been. Johnson is also adamant that he’ll remain fully accountable for policing in the city.

Fine and dandy, then. Is it the right move, though, for Johnson to have handed the MPA chairmanship baton to his deputy, Kit Malthouse?

Rumour has it that Met chiefs already have one eye fixed on any signs of further interference by the political types when it comes to operational policing. Their disquiet is based – at least in part – upon Conservative Malthouse’s apparently tense working relationship with Sir Paul.

Last year, there was an extraordinary furore when the publicity-hungry Malthouse had a verbal ‘Square Go’ – as they say in Glasgow – with Stephenson on the question of who actually runs London’s policing effort.

Who’s in charge of the Boys in Blue?

Malthouse was in no doubt that the Mayors office had both hands firmly on the policing tiller, so to speak, only for Sir Paul to make a rare public statement to the effect that it’s he who’s “captain of the ship”.

Hardly the best way to begin a new era of policing, is it? A betting man would suspect the potential for friction is just around the corner.

Whether or not the Capital’s residents feel Malthouse really has the mandate of Londoners on this issue is absolutely key.

Chairmanship of the MPA may well be primarily an administrative role, but it’s also largely about driving service delivery. The people of London – and all of our other major cities, for that matter – want to see knives and guns off the streets, drug dealers locked away and terrorists/terrorism suspects corralled in such a way that they can do us no harm.

Malthouse is certainly making all the right noises, suggesting in no uncertain terms that tackling serious and violent crime will be the priority across the next two years. So, too, is Stephenson, most notably through his recent comments following celebrity Myleene Klass actions on finding two ne’er-do-wells loitering with intent in her back garden post-sunset.

Big impression in a small window

He may well be a maverick, but Johnson made a significant and positive impression at the MPA in a very short space of time. As I said, he played a lead role in unseating Sir Ian Blair, had a substantial say in budgetary change and, if you believe the figures, also presided over reductions in criminality.

Johnson believes that, as an independent body of experts working to improve policing in London, the MPA should put party politics to one side. I’m in total agreement with that statement, and pleased to see that Reshard Auladin OBE, a very well-respected and clearly independent voice on the MPA, is being put forward as vice-chairman to work hand-in-glove with Malthouse.

Only time will tell as to whether ‘The Malthouse Effect’ is going to be anything like as significant. Some say the Liverpool-born former deputy leader of Westminster Council has always been the ‘power behind the throne’ at the MPA in any case, and thus ‘business is usual’ will likely be the order of the day.

However, Malthouse will now have to ‘front it up’ before the learned end of the national media – and at City Hall gatherings – when events akin to the G20 protests arise once again (for they surely will).

I suspect that’s when we’ll really be able to decide whether or not this Son of Merseyside is the man for the MPA hot seat.

Few more pennies in the pound

Just to round things off neatly on this subject, it was interesting to note the comments made by Dee Doocey, the Liberal Democrat London Assembly policing spokeswoman and MPA member who welcomed the announcement that Johnson’s stepping down with barely restrained glee.

“This is welcome news as the Mayor has never been on top of this incredibly important job,” enthused Doocey in the broadsheets.

“I just hope that, unlike Boris Johnson, Kit Malthouse actually reads and understands the Metropolitan Police Service’s budget and then sets out to immediately reverse the damaging cuts in police numbers which the Mayor has for so long denied.”

I’ve never understood the maxim that, whatever political colour happens to be in power, there must always be a finite budget for policing.

Whereas we ‘ordinary’ people object so strongly (and with good reason) to tax hikes resulting from gross financial mismanagement – as precipitated by this current Government and its bloated devotees in The City – I think you’d be hard-pushed to find anyone who wouldn’t give up an extra few pennies in the pound if it meant they could go about their life in peace and safety because more Boys in Blue have been underwritten for beat patrol.

The Darling Buds of May

With the winter chill still in the air, and snow forecast yet again for some parts of the UK this week, I’ll forgive you if you’re not thinking about The Darling Buds of May. That said, you jolly well ought to be!

The security sector’s biggest and best exhibition and conference programme alights at the Birmingham NEC from 10-13 May. Yes, it’s IFSEC 2010 Time!

Organiser United Business Media (UBM) Live’s Venues, Protection and Leisure Division wants to see as many of you – high profile, professional and dedicated end users – at the event. For that matter, so do I.

You’ll be pleased to know two things. One, registration is already open and, for SMT SELECT members, we’ll once again have free car-parking spaces available as well as fast-track entry.

The SMT SELECT Lounge will be in situ, too, such that you can hold those all-important discussions with your favoured solutions providers in peace and comfort.

600-plus of those solutions companies will pack the halls this year, covering all the latest developments in access control, CCTV, counter-terrorism, physical security, intruder alarms and IP and integrated systems.

IFSEC Security Industry Awards 2010

You might want to join us at the Birmingham NEC Metropole Hotel on the evening of Monday 10 May for the IFSEC Security Industry Awards and celebrate best practice, innovation and those pioneering technological development.

Perhaps your company might wish to send a submission to the Judging Panel. You have to be in it to win it, right?

Supported by The Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers and co-located with The Facilities Show as well as Safety and Health Expo, IFSEC is the ‘must attend’ event of the security calendar (along with the Security Excellence Awards, of course!)

You might even want to book an appointment with yours truly in The SMT SELECT Lounge. I’d be delighted to see you there and more than happy to chat about security management and related issues.

Go on. Take a day or two out of the office. I dare you… and I promise you it’ll be worth your while and then some.

Until next time…

Brian Sims (Editor, Security Management Today Online and Group Content Editor of the UBM Live Protection and Management Division’s Security Portfolio)

SMT Online Editor’s View: The SIA – A Baseline Review

Dr Adam White and Professor Martin Smith have completed an insightful appraisal of the SIA’s work to date, assessing the extent to which the Regulator has achieved its objectives. Brian Sims evaluates the key findings.

At the start of this particular New Year, we must all hope that UK plc is finally going to benefit from a few ‘quick win’ pick-me-ups as the nation slowly but surely snakes its way out of deep recession (and depression).

Sure enough, the economy does seem to be breaking free of despond – if only by the slightest of margins – while house prices, we’re told, are back in the ascendancy.

In the security world, plenty of companies have hit the 2010 ground running. There’s a lot of positivity going on, which is great to see and hear.

Maybe – just maybe – Broken Britain is finally witnessing the application of a few much-needed Elastoplasts.

Some things never change, though. Proposed cuts in defence spending are ruffling the feathers of our gallant Army’s top brass, the MPs apparently continue to rake it in, The City bankers’ radars are once again fixed on personal gain and greed and life sentences for murderers aren’t worth a gavel. C’est La Vie.

Oh yes. Lest I forget that, as of yesterday morning, the Government is now being accused of “institutional inertia” in respect of the counter-terror effort.

Given the startling revelation that some terrorists are now fully prepared to endure explosive devices being sewn inside their bodies in order to escape detection at airport x-ray machines, inertia is one state of affairs we absolutely cannot afford to promulgate.

Speaking of defence-related issues, hasn’t it been an education watching all of the nervous squirming going on in front of the Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry Panel?

Last Friday, Tony Blair spent six tortuous hours informing Sir John and Co that, if he could turn the clocks back, he’d make the same decisions and take the same actions all over again in relation to the Iraq conflict. He’s obviously not in step with those members of our society who think the Government’s trajectory realised this nation’s worst foreign policy disaster of all time.

Post-Chilcot Inquiry report

While unashamedly continuing to digress for a second, the fact is that Saddam Hussein and his cronies ought to have been ‘removed from office’ at the first time of asking.

If memory serves correctly, the initial Persian Gulf War witnessed then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher willing that scenario to be played out. As The Iron Lady remarked, it was “no time to go wobbly”, but George Bush Senior and his administration appeared to ‘bottle it’ on the grounds that any such course of action would have fractured the political coalition.

In an ecologically-focused era, wasn’t the unforgettable, apocalyptic vision of so many oil wells being set alight in Kuwait sufficient justification for removal of The Tyrant, never mind all the abhorrent reports of genocide and torture in his own domain?

It’s possible to focus on myriad reasons why we went to war this time around, but one suspects George W Bush may have been trying to atone for what several commentators still believe to be his father’s error of judgement.

As was the case two decades ago, I wanted to see Hussein deposed every bit as much as the next correct-thinking man and woman, but there are ways and means of doing things.

Acting on what has been commonly termed a dodgy dossier through which you can allegedly drive a coach and horses – and still have room to spare – isn’t one of them.

When it finally appears in black and white, the post-Inquiry Chilcot Report will most certainly make for both extensive and fascinating reading.

In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare scripted the immortal line: “The truth will out”. I certainly hope so, but whether or not that truth is enough to salve the gnawing pain felt by so many families who’ve lost their loved ones in a costly conflict – a battle that was unnecessary, as it should have been won in 1991 – is quite another matter entirely.

Back in the here and now, a new missive on the work of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) makes for equally interesting scrutiny.

It’s a document compiled by Martin Smith – professor of politics – and Dr Adam White, Smith’s research associate in the highly respected Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.

White is fast gaining a name for himself in private security circles, having spoken so eloquently, passionately and in such a forthright manner at the SIAs 2009 Stakeholder Conference.

Exercising a little patience

In truth, the good Doctor carried out much of the face-to-face research for this new 90-page report entitled ‘The Security Industry Authority: A Baseline Review’.

It was ‘put to bed’ last October and received by the SIA in November, with the Regulator using that interim period between then and now to compose a concise response for simultaneous publication.

Surprisingly, there have been no press statements about the report. No pointers on the SIA’s Home Page, either. None of the fanfare associated with the National Audit Office’s report on the Regulator. Nor that which marked the launch of the recent Better Regulation Executive document.

On this basis alone, I thought I’d take a look at the contents. Could the lack of promotion perhaps stem from an initial observation that White and Smith’s publication places far more emphasis on the industry’s views of regulation to date rather than the SIA’s own beliefs? Has it hit a few raw nerves?

Either way, a public airing of – and commentary on – the key findings is most definitely warranted.

According to White and Smith, private sector security providers are divided over the extent to which the SIA has succeeded in reducing criminality through the administration and enforcement of its licensing system. One third of providers surveyed believe that criminality has been reduced, one third were undecided and the final 33.3% came to the conclusion that criminality has not been reduced.

The academics refer to ‘hidden criminality’ and ‘loophole criminality’. The SIA believes the latter phrase to be “misleading” as it’s a term that suggests loopholes can be found in the legislation when, from the Regulator’s perspective, this is very definitely not the case.

The SIA responds that it has “approaches” in place “to address this issue” and tackle, for example, those individuals who proffer misleading job titles when applying for a licence. What, exactly, are these “approaches”, though? I for one wouldn’t mind seeing them spelt out.

There’s also a significant conflict between the providers’ expectation that the SIA should pursue a strong and active enforcement strategy and what the SIA can actually accomplish within the somewhat restrictive context of the better regulation and political agendas, its own limited legal powers and, indeed, ongoing resource constraints.

For certain, the Regulator must – and surely will – grasp the opportunities presented by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act.

The majority of solutions providers suggest that the SIA has at least gone some way towards raising standards to an acceptable minimum level across the industry, primarily through the competency requirements, the criminal record checks and – to a slightly lesser extent – by way of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), more of which anon.

Concerns over current competency requirements

However, there are fairly deep-set concerns that, in certain instances, the competency requirements have been set too low and that some training organisations are running sub-standard training courses.

Last October, I was summarily shot down in public forum for saying something along these lines at the Skills for Security National Conference.

In the wake of Panorama and comments now made in this University of Sheffield report, surely there’s no smoke without fire?

The Regulator replies to White and Smith’s assertion that it should work more closely with training providers to stamp out any malpractice by referring to both sides of the proverbial training coin.

One centres on the management of allegations alluding to training malpractice. In short, nothing less than cheating by dishonest providers to earn certificates for those not deserving of them.

The other concerns whether or not the training meted out is really ‘fit for purpose’ in the first instance.

There are assurances from 90 High Holborn that “every allegation of malpractice is investigated”, either by the Awarding Bodies or the relevant qualifications monitor. Remember, it’s not the SIA’s remit to act on training shenanigans. That’s a job for third parties.

Statistics fed to the SIA, we are told, suggest that training malpractice is not rife. OfQual certainly isn’t concerned, opining that there’s “no more training malpractice in the security sector than in any other”.

Fine, but I’m always slightly wary about sweeping generalisations of this nature. Some concrete proof would be preferable.

As the SIA rightly states, any incidence of malpractice whatsoever is worrying. Indeed so. To my mind, all guilty parties must be found, brought to book and never allowed to sully the security sector’s doorstep ever again.

Is the current training good enough? Well, we’re looking at a four-day Basic Job Training package including a broad-brush overview (because that’s all it can possibly be in one day) of conflict management.

As I’ve said many times before, we’re miles away from the exemplar Scandinavian model and, I’m told, also lagging far behind the States. Put simply, the core training regimen in the UK has to be increased.

One of White and Smith’s recommendations is as follows: “The SIA should continue to closely review the relationship between the training standards written in to the competency requirement and the responsibilities of private security officers with a view to actively reconciling any disjuncture emerging between the two.”

The Regulator has, of course, instigated changes to licence-linked training and rightly makes a big play of that fact in its response to White and Smith.

Steering Groups, Expert Working Groups and a public consultation are all referenced. There was extensive input from the industry in all of this, don’t forget. All bases covered, then.

Objectives of the Approved Contractor Scheme

White and Smith point to “notable tensions” about what the objective of the ACS ought to be. While many service providers feel – as I do – that the ACS should be an ‘elite club’ for between 100 and 200 top-end companies, several SIA staff members believe that the scheme has to be more of a ‘baseline club’ which steers as many companies as possible towards a set of basic standards.

As a buyer, whom would you rather be seeing at procurement time? Five contractors at the top of their game, or five who just about managed to jump the regulatory fence?

I’m really looking forward to The Security Institutes next Members Evening in London on 10 February when VSG chairman Bill Muskin and ACS assistant director Andrew Shephard will be going head-to-head on the ACS and ‘The Differentiation Agenda’. That promises to be some discussion.

White and Smith tell us that, based on interviews with the industry, the SIA should consider making both the ACS self-assessment and inspection processes a tad more rigorous.

It’s now on record that the fast-track method for approval is being phased-out this coming May. In the meantime, any organisation approved in this way must subject itself to independent assessment within six months of their approval having been granted.

The SIA’s response to White and Smith? “The ACS is not a minimum standard, but neither is it an elite standard”. What is it, then? More importantly, what should it be?

To use current business parlance, perhaps some kind of Clarity Contract is in order here so that we all know where the ACS truly sits in the grand scheme of things.

According to several private sector security providers, there’s evidence to suggest that regulation has increased opportunities for companies to expand their operations, and that it has provided slightly clearer career structures – and marginally better wages – for private security officers.

That view is counterbalanced by other providers’ belief that regulation has, on average, caused a reduction in company profit margins while at the same time serving to increase staff turnover.

Moving away from the ‘grudge purchase’

Furthermore, White and Smith note that the grudge purchase ‘culture’ which has undoubtedly inhibited the industry’s overall development for many years is still very evident post-regulation. You can lead the purchaser to water, it seems, but you cannot make him or her drink from the well.

Amazingly, there are still plenty of end users who either don’t know about regulation or choose to ignore it, maybe because it doesn’t sit well with their employer’s tactical agenda.

As I’ve said before, that’s not the fault of the Regulator. There have been plenty of Corporate Updates and discussion forums on top of the Stakeholder Conferences.

Alas, the insurance community has been backward in coming forward on this matter. All we’ve had since the Regulator took office is a brief statement agreed between the SIA and the Association of British Insurers whereby the latter would ‘recommend’ to its members that they only afford cover to those clients embracing regulation and employing ACS-listed outfits.

To be honest, recommending something of this nature isn’t good enough. There’s a word in the Oxford English Dictionary. That word is mandatory. How about we start using it in this sector?

The Wider Policing Family

White and Smith tell us that both the providers and the police service offer some evidence that working relationships between private security personnel and police officers are showing signs of improvement, with the number of partnership schemes increasing slightly and channels of communication improving to some degree.

However, it also seems to be the perception that respect for private sector security providers among members of the police service has not been enhanced to any great degree as a consequence of regulation.

It remains glaringly apparent that some policing practitioners still lack confidence in contracted security. Inevitably, this is a limiting factor in terms of the development of working relationships between private sector security personnel and their policing cousins.

Dare I say it, but the senior Boys in Blue should spend less time ingratiating themselves with politicians and the political landscape and a little more on supporting a willing private security sector that’s desperately trying to sit – without discomfort – at the same law enforcement table.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Not (Quite) The Nine O’Clock News

Although the snow and sub-zero temperatures have dominated the headlines across UK plc, they haven’t hindered a rather interesting start to the New Year for ‘Security UK’. Brian Sims reflects on the main stories to date.

Typical of the British weather, isn’t it? One minute you’re quietly venturing through the doors at Sainsbury’s in Apsley, Hemel Hempstead (as I did on the evening of 17 December) minus any kind of hindrance, and around an hour later you emerge to find ten inches of snow biting at your ankles!

The kind of conditions wherein the Great British Taxi Driver fears to tread!

Thankfully, Choice Sunshine delivered a licensed Hackney Carriage to me as one their ‘cabbies’ had just fought his way through the elements from Abbots Langley. As luck would have it, my journey happened to be on his way home.

By the time we reached my destination – my parents’ house – the roads had become impassable, and there was absolutely no chance of the Birds Eye Garden Peas or the Mackey’s ice cream defrosting before they hit the fridge.

Lucky me, I thought. I could have been stuck in Apsley all night with only ten bags of groceries to keep me warm. That would have been fun. Not.

To its great credit, the UK security profession/industry/business sector – whichever description takes your fancy – has laughed in the face of the white stuff and, even though it’s only the 19th of January, we already seem to be on a very positive roll. Long may that state of affairs persist.

Lowden clear on Kelly

By all accounts, James Kelly – the new BSIA chief executive – has settled in very nicely indeed at Kirkham House, and is already out and about meeting his public.

The other day, I spoke at length to Stuart Lowden about the selection process involved in Kellys appointment. It was rigorous, but then it needed to be. After all, we’re talking about one of the most high profile and pivotal roles in the industry.

Kelly is indeed on a fast learning curve, but it’s tremendous that he’s being helped all the while by none other than David Dickinson.

For my money, David was a superb chief executive at the Trade Association right from the day he took office back in early 2002. The fact that he’s with the BSIA until April in a consultative capacity will assist Kelly no end in coming to terms with the various nuances and agendas floating around the sector.

Of course, Mr Lowden’s ‘day job’ is not his chairmanship of the BSIA (although he has commendably afforded much time to that role since John Bates departed Kirkham House last August), but rather the running of what is an innovative, forward-thinking and hugely respected operation at guarding solutions provider Wilson James.

Along with other guarding chiefs, Stuart would no doubt have been heartened to read the latest Plimsoll analysis of this major market sector (which still accounts for the biggest spend by end users ahead of surveillance) that followed on from December’s doom-laden statistics.

It looks as though more jobs will need to be shed across the sector if some company profit sheets are going to return to the black. Let’s face it, nearly £800 million was wiped from those accounts in what was a massively tough 2009, but nonetheless over 100 companies are rated as ‘Strong’ by Plimsoll.

This year, if contractors can grab the bull by the horns – and end users’ purse strings are slackened a little – then genuine recovery is a realistic ambition.

Proceeding in the right direction

Sticking with the guarding theme for a moment, the Regulator has also started 2010 in good order. Just before the Christmas holiday, I went through every page of its Annual Report and Accounts for 2008-2009 and, it must be said, the statistics therein tell a promising story.

Achievements during the financial year included completion of the much-publicised feasibility study on security business licensing, the in-house licensing review (although the outcome here wasn’t to everyone’s liking, least of all my own) and the build-up to regulation roll-out in Northern Ireland. To date, that has been an unqualified success.

There’s also mention of “significant improvements” to customer services and “valuable confirmation” of the Regulator’s ability to prosecute those who attempt to override the law. I suspect leading industry figures will wish to see more of the same in 2010 as far as enforcement’s concerned.

Again with the Regulator at its heart, news concerning top-up training for door supervisors has been met with varying degrees of positivity and negativity. While Tony Clarke (current chairman of the BSIA’s Leisure Section) is firmly behind this decision, elements of it – most notably the area of conflict resolution – are being questioned by Doorwatch representative Ian Fox.

In conversation, Ian told me: “To ensure consistency, everyone needs to be speaking the same language and using the same training techniques. This particular aspect of a door supervisor’s work cannot be left to those whose commercial interest is in creating differences that don’t need to exist. If this training is about improving public safety, then profit cannot be allowed to dictate the training programme.”

Strong words indeed and, one has to say, not without foundation. I hate using the phrase – Business Bingo is funny and yet so crass all at the same time – but everyone must be seen to sing from the same hymn sheet here. If not, like any initiative that’s disjointed, there’s little likelihood of a successful outcome.

Talking about a Klass war

Moving away from ‘our world’ for a second, it’s interesting to note that what we all do – ‘security’ – is never that far away from the mainstream media’s thought processes. Well, the tabloids like to sensationalise, don’t they?

They certainly did so when they found out about former Hear’Say singer-turned-TV presenter Myleene Klass’ encounter with two youths in the leafy surroundings of her garden in Potters Bar. That said, it was worth the coverage, as the story – depending upon which version of events you believe – had a salient and hugely important strand to it.

To do this day, everyone talks about the Tony Martin case. It’s still as controversial a conversation topic over dinner now as it was then.

In the case of Myleene Klass, here we have a young mother at home alone with her two-year-old child asleep upstairs. She’s afraid for her safety when yobbos start marauding around her garden, and brandishes a kitchen knife to scare them off. She had no intention of using said utensil.

Unless the Hertfordshire Police could have been on her doorstep within 20 seconds or so from the time the youths were spotted, what good would it have been to call them? God forbid, something really serious could have happened long before they did turn up.

What’s Myleene supposed to do in the meantime? Fend off the yobs by calling out: “Please leave my garden now!” through the window? Knowing today’s youth profile, they probably wouldn’t have understood such an instruction, much less paid any attention to it. Too many of them have no time neither any respect for authority. That’s the real problem.

For my money, Myleene did the right thing and has made the right noises in the media subsequent to the ‘attack’ at her premises.

It’s not about vigilantism. Rather, it’s about being able to defend yourself and those you love without fearing the prison cell door closing behind you rather than the miscreants whose crime-filled existence started the whole process in the first place.

Is the law an ass (as many people suggested on Sky News online poll in relation to this incident)? One need only peep beneath the surface of what a life sentence for murder means these days to determine the answer.

Smith and Co in the frame again

Also in the public realm, it’s interesting to note that architectural photographer Grant Smith – the man who, among many other ‘snappers’, has recently fallen foul of the Terrorism Act 2000 – is joining forces with like-minded souls for a demonstration in London this coming weekend.

I can see both sides of the argument here. We enjoy our freedoms in this great country of ours – although freedom of speech no longer seems to be one of them – but there’s an overriding need for security to be as tight as possible given the threats we now confront on a daily basis.

The way forward? It must be for serious discussions to take place between professional photographers and the authorities.

Failing to plan is planning to fail. If a set of rules can be laid down that appease both parties then so much the better. I certainly don’t want seven police vans on my back the next time I’m taking a picture in London to support an article I’m researching, and neither does Mr Hildebrand!

Let’s try, let’s try… again

Further afield, as Governments worldwide desperately scrambled to respond to the actions of so-called ‘underpants bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Borderpol has now called – and rightly so, in my view – for the formation of an all-new international border organisation.

It’s pretty much fair to say that terrorists and criminals in general always tend to be one step ahead of the game. Certainly in cyberspace, it seems as though some of them have the ability to crack computer codes and programs almost before they’re available for public use. It’s frightening.

We must never underestimate the criminal. Today’s breed are intelligent. Much as we might despise them, at the same time they demand a healthy degree of respect if we are to defeat them.

Prior to the Abdulmutallab incident on Christmas Day, there had been mumblings that this sort of incident would occur. To me, it was no great surprise. I use airports on a weekly basis these days and, if I’m honest, there are times when I’m observing the actions of security operatives and they fair make me wince.

Put simply, there’s too much chat about last night’s football and not enough concentration on the task at hand. It has been said before, but the systems in operation are only as good as the people using them. If the latter’s collective eye is off the ball for just one second it could lead to disaster.

Christmas Day showed beyond any reasonable doubt that we cannot afford to be in any way complacent when it comes to aviation security.

Graham makes an early mark

Another chap who’s already made his presence felt in 2010 is Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner.

New powers designed to deter personal data security breaches are likely to be enforced from 6 April.

Under the new legislation, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will be able to fine organisations anything up to £500,000 as a penalty for “serious breaches” of the Data Protection Act 1998.

“Over 700 data breaches have been reported in the UK since the HMRC data breach, and many more go unreported,” commented Bridget Treacy, a partner at Hunton & Williams specialising in privacy and information governance. “It seems likely that the first monetary penalties will not be long in coming. All eyes will be on the unlucky first recipients.” Indeed so.

Lessons to be learned

Without wishing to conclude my latest missive on a sour note, I couldn’t escape the shocking findings of the latest British Retail Consortium (BRC) Retail Crime Survey, not to mention the main conclusions drawn from the G4S survey of the sector.

In terms of the BRC’s results, it appears that the number of thefts from shops has risen by a third in a single year, with an incident occurring nearly every minute, 24 hours a day. On top of that, incidents of violence and abuse against shop staff have doubled.

With one fifth of retailers suggesting they still don’t report crime because they’ve no confidence in the police service, and two thirds of shop thefts passing by unreported, I have to agree with BRC director general Stephen Robertson when he states that the police (and the criminal justice system in general) simply must begin to take retail theft more seriously.

‘Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime’… Nice words, but here’s hoping the authorities actually deliver on that promise in 2010.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Accounting for SIA regulation

The Security Industry Authority recently published its Annual Report and Accounts for the period 2008-2009. Is there anything major that jumps out of this 110-page missive? Brian Sims examines the main points.

In his own Foreword to the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) Annual Report for 2008-2009, Alan Campbell – the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction and the Home Office minister responsible for the Regulator – describes the period under review as one of “solid achievement and consolidation.”

Campbell talks of the SIA finally being able to meet its targets for service delivery following the introduction of the new licence processing system, and also refers to co-operation with the UK Border Agency “working well” in terms of combating illegal working.

On that same theme, Campbell merely uses the word “regrettable” when mentioning the fact that some SIA agency staff had not been security cleared. “Inexcusable” would have been a more realistic assessment.

Rightly, the minister pays tribute to Bernard Herdan, who did a tremendous job as interim chief executive following the sudden departure of Mike Wilson.

Herdan steadied a ship that appeared to be listing a little, and introduced an effective and efficient style of management that – by all accounts – everyone at 90 High Holborn found most agreeable.

The Regulator: now on a firm footing

In a far more telling statement than that offered by Campbell, Kenny MacAskill – the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland, and the minister responsible for the SIA north of the border – focuses on the key issues.

He too talks of the SIA now realising “a firm footing” for its business and “a number of service improvements”, as well as “joint enforcement action with the police”. According to MacAskill, the latter is “something all law enforcement partners in Scotland are keen to build on in the coming year”.

In what is an astute and accurate assessment, MacAskill goes on to say: “It is the responsibility of us all, not just the police service and the SIA, to ensure that crime does not take hold in our communities, and I welcome the opportunity provided through the SIA’s website for people to report any concerns they have about particular companies and individuals.”

MacAskill also mentions wanting to “ensure those crooks who have given the industry such a bad name are driven out for good”. Well said, that man.

The final Foreword to this latest Annual Report is devoted to the views of Baroness Ruth Henig, the SIA’s chairman who has just been re-elected to continue serving as the organisation’s figurehead.

The Baroness describes the year under review as having been “a challenging one” which has brought significant change to her organisation. Upbeat, Henig talks of the Regulator emerging from these challenges “in better shape, and with renewed confidence for the future”.

Of course, there was the Delivery Review jointly commissioned by the Home Office and the Regulator’s own Board. This resulted in an operational plan and the National Audit Offices ‘Value for Money’ report that concluded the SIA had “effectively” introduced its regulatory regime.

Significant improvements to customer service

As far as The Baroness is concerned, achievements during the financial year included completion of the much-publicised feasibility study on security business licensing, the in-house review and the build-up to regulation roll-out in Northern Ireland.

There’s also mention of “significant improvements” to customer services and “valuable confirmation” of the Regulator’s ability to prosecute those who attempt to override the law.

The Baroness thanks applicants and employers for their patience during the licence processing system upgrade, and offers fulsome praise for members of the SIA’s staff “without whom the turnaround in performance would not have been possible”.

There is no danger of complacency, though, with Henig determined that the Regulator – under the charge of new chief executive Bill Butler – will “strive to continue to maximise service levels” for its customers.

Of the imminent challenges facing the organisation, the chairman lists service levels needing to remain high during the re-tendering process for its managed service provider, the licensing of new sectors – private investigators among them – and the build-up to both the Olympic and Commonwealth Games.

Improvements in process, effective enforcement

For its part, the managed service provision project was engendered with five clear objectives in mind: to improve levels of customer service, reduce the burden on customers, raise the rigour of identity checks and increase flexibility – all underpinned by the need to minimise costs and, therefore, avoid any increase to the licence fee itself.

Initially, the project didn’t go according to plan (as stated in the previous SIA Annual Report).

However, demonstrable improvements were made in the last quarter of this current report’s timeline: 85% of all those properly completed licence application forms were processed within 40 working days (89% of applications from UK and EEA nationals were processed within 33 days).

The 2008-2009 Annual Report states: “In terms of licensing, we have already responded to a 35% increase in applications, and continue to fine-tune the licensing process. Having met our target of dealing with 80% of applications for UK and EEA nationals within 33 working days, we have now increased this target to 85% going forward.”

It goes on to state: “We have been working closely with our Contact Centre to improve waiting times and quality of service, and will be increasing our telephone response time target to 95% of all calls being answered within 30 seconds.”

Apparently, the implementation of the online passport checking procedure between the Regulator and the Identity and Passport Service “has been a particular success”.

The Regulator, of course, now provides monthly online updates on the actions it has taken in relation to enforcement of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. In March 2009, for example, 970 pieces of intelligence were received from partners including members of the public, the industry, Crimestoppers, from the police and other law enforcement agencies.

That intelligence allowed the revocation of 26 licences, the suspension of 55 and risk assessments on 58 companies (29 of which were adjudged to be of either high or medium risk).

In triumphal language, the report states: “Last year, we issued 331 written warnings and 19 improvement notices, and revoked 3,618 licences.” The results of 11 separate prosecutions are outlined, and there’s an entire page devoted to the Securiplan case (and, more specifically, the comments made at the time by His Honour Judge Rivlin QC).

Reducing criminality, raising standards

Six overarching objectives for the SIA were set by the Board for 2008-2009, all of them with measurable performance indicators. The first of these was to reduce criminality across the industry, supported by the Regulator’s ability to be able to refuse licence applications and revoke those for individuals not deemed to be ‘fit and proper persons’.

102,495 licence applications were accepted in 2006-2007, with the figure for 2007-2008 being 77,268. In 2008-2009, no less than 141,412 applications were accepted. The target, respectively, for each year was 80,735, then 65,000 and 97,000. The 2008-2009 target was exceeded by 46%.

Revised criminality criteria were built into the criminal record checks on 6 October 2008, thus maintaining the Regulator’s ongoing commitments to protection of the public. This has proven to be a successful initiative.

The objective of raising standards is supported by the requirement for licence holders to have relevant basic core competency qualifications, while at the same time ensuring that training and qualifications meet the needs of the licensing regime.

“It is also supported by increasing the number of ACS companies and employees, and requiring Approved Contractors to meet quality standards.”

The target for 2008-2009 was to have 500 companies registered as Approved Contractors. That figure is now creeping up towards the 700 mark (as of yesterday there were 658 registered organisations on the list).

Is that a good thing? Is that a differentiator if so many companies are passing muster? Does that make the Approved Contractor Scheme what it should be (ie a benchmark for the elite of the guarding world)?

Continually improving and developing the Regulator

A direct online link has been established with the Identity and Passport Service that allows the SIA to verify identities without the need for seeing a passport. At least now security officers will be able to plan their holidays without fear of their passport possibly being lost before it’s time to travel.

Call waiting times for those trying to access the Contact Centre have also improved. Come March last year, 89% of calls were being answered within 30 seconds. That has enabled the Regulator to set a target for 2009-2010 whereby 95% of calls will be answered within the same time period.

The SIA undertakes a number of operations to test that the security industry is at least 80% compliant with the Private Security Industry Act 2001. A graph reproduced in the report suggests that the industry is, in fact, 90% compliant, which is a very satisfying result. In 83% of compliance testing undertaken, the level of compliance was found to be 90% or greater.

During the reporting period under scrutiny, the Regulator dealt with 300 businesses deemed to be ‘high risk’ in terms of compliance, including 160 guarding companies and 86 businesses involved with door supervision. A new Enforcement Section on the SIA’s website details what happened. This is a step in the right direction, making the whole process transparent.

2009 witnessed the largest-ever operation mounted by the SIA north of the border. Rogue security firms working at construction sites across the Strathclyde and Lothian & Borders regions were targeted by SIA officers with the support of Strathclyde Police, Lothian and Borders Police, the UK Border Agency and the Department of Work and Pensions.

120 licensable security operatives were checked. 97 were found to hold valid SIA licences. 23 operatives were reported for working without a licence. 15 individuals were reported for benefit irregularities, and a further ten for offences relating to the immigration rules. 202 construction sites serviced by 37 different security companies were subjected to thorough checks. This is what the industry wants to see.

The Regulator, of course, places great emphasis on Stakeholder engagement. This is touted as “one of the key pillars” of its approach to doing business with the industry which it serves. Five such networks – for door supervision, vehicle immobilisation, CCTV, small businesses and close protection – are now established.

Having addressed the audiences at two Network Forums just prior to Christmas, I would suggest that they’re extremely useful indeed.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I believe the decision not to licence in-house security personnel was a serious mistake. The industry didn’t help itself by the non-provision of evidence, but there are niceties to be observed above and beyond this whole question of whether or not neglecting in-house is ‘injurious to the public good’.

Until and unless there is a genuinely level playing field when it comes to the provision of security guarding there will always be a ‘window of opportunity’ there for the national media and others to point the finger of suspicion.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: SpongeBob’s on Border Control

Immigration minister Phil Woolas’ latest breathtaking outburst, the current happenings at RUSI and the departure of an installation champion from UBM Live’s Security Portfolio. Brian Sims talks ‘UK security’.

Unbelievable. Outrageous. Crass. Deeply insensitive. Idiotic. Extraordinary.

These are but some of the adjectives that sprang to mind last night as I attempted to digest the strident comments made yesterday by immigration minister Phil Woolas. Comments relating to desk-bound immigration bosses and details of the bonuses they’ve received in return for – as Woolas tells it – “putting their lives on the line” for this fine country of ours.

Perhaps Woolas felt he had to try and defend the indefensible while speaking on BBC Radio 4, knowing that a highly critical report has just been published in which selected MPs are outwardly scathing about the same UK Border Agency that Mr Woolas obviously feels is doing a tremendous job.

The Home Affairs Select Committee’s diatribe suggests that the Agency in question is still not ‘fit for purpose’ and has “a long way to go” before it can be deemed to be operating “as efficiently and effectively” as possible.

The Government has had 12 years to do something about border control, and yet look at the mess sprawled out before us… There’s currently a backlog of 450,000 claims made by asylum seekers. In 40,000 instances, the immigration service bosses – 29 of whom, it has emerged, have (on average) been paid a cool £10,000 each in bonuses for the year 2007-2008 – are either unable or unwilling to say whether or not these individuals are still here.

Might some of those who’ve escaped the net be active terrorists, or at the very least individuals looking for salvation by way of radicalisation? Surely that has to be a possibility?

Rewards for abject failure

Frankly, it’s astonishing that such a large number of case files have seemingly been abandoned, and even more galling that those responsible for them are being rewarded for what is, in effect, abject failure to do their job.

Chaired by Keith Vaz, the Home Affairs Select Committee has also disclosed that nigh on 90,000 files adjudged to have been ‘concluded’ were subsequently found to contain errors of one kind or another. Why are we rewarding such blatant mismanagement?

Talking to respected journalist and ‘Today’ host John Humphreys, Woolas commented: “The UK Border Agency should be praised. It deploys very brave men and women who protect our borders, and they’re getting on top of the situation. Frontline officers work 24/7 at our ports around the country to protect our borders, and in daily operations and partnerships with the police to arrest and deport foreign criminals. Often, they work in difficult and dangerous situations.”

I’ve no doubt the frontline staff members are facing danger on a daily basis, Mr Woolas, but they’re not the ones receiving fat bonuses for sticking their necks on the line, are they?

You’re giving the wedge to people who sit behind a desk. The type whose only danger on a daily basis is that Pret A Manger across the road might run out of Posh Bacon Baguettes before they decide to trot over for breakfast.

Woolas may not have directly compared his immigration service chiefs with our troops in Afghanistan, as many of the broadsheets and tabloids were suggesting, but said comparison is almost inevitable.

On the very same morning that Woolas spoke to Humphreys (and presumably the intelligent layer of this nation’s populus), news broke that the number of British service personnel killed in the Taliban’s back garden this year rose to 100. In fact, 2009 has been the bloodiest 12 months for our brave soldiers since the Falklands conflict of 1982.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown wasted no time in trotting out all the usual bland platitudes, stating that his thoughts are with the families and friends of those fearless young men and women. People who really have put their lives on the line for our freedoms, and (more often than not) without support from their political paymasters when it comes to proper equipment.

“We will never forget those who’ve died,” said Brown. I’ll never forget the ways in which your administration has let them down in a big way, Prime Minister, and neither I suspect will those family members and their friends whom, I’m certain, will take your words with the proverbial pinch of salt and find them hard to swallow in the extreme.

Stretching credibility to breaking point

Flying in the face of all facts before him, Woolas insisted that the UK Border Agency has made “considerable improvements” and is “a world leader”. He cited biometric visas and identity cards for foreign nationals as if to cement his woolly beliefs.

The national ID card scheme is now a busted flush, amply evidenced by the true fact that only 10,000 citizens have registered their interest in any such scheme out of a population that’s expected to reach 70 million in the not-too-distant future. As I’ve previously stated on info4security, that’s hardly a resounding vote of confidence.

Stretching credibility to breaking point, Woolas then said: “I believe it’s right to reward staff for outstanding work. Bonuses are only ever rewarded to those who have performed to a high standard.”

In the last 12 months alone there has been a staggering string of examples of ongoing incompetence some three years and more since (then) Home Secretary Dr John Reid described his department’s immigration arm as being ‘not fit for purpose’.

No wonder the Government cannot control the obscene amounts of money still being trousered by the fine dining, high-living bankers – Brown and Darling ought to call the bluff of the RBS bosses and let them walk, but they’re too weak to do so – when, at the same time, it’s ladling out fat wads to public sector employees.

To cover these perks, you and I and every other hard-working taxpayer collectively coughed up £128 million in 2007-2008 alone.

In defence of the staff

Woolas has already been criticised for suggesting that, at least in part, our soldiers are in Afghanistan to help control immigration, but this latest outburst really beggars belief.

To the best of my knowledge (because the Home Office steadfastly refuses to issue such statistics), there hasn’t been a single fatality among frontline officers working for the UK Border Agency, and certainly not among the ‘desk jockeys’ currently sitting back and planning a very nice, suburban, Waitrose-rich Christmas courtesy of us mere plebs.

Woolas wanted to defend his staff. Nothing wrong with that in commercial business circles, but in public office it’s not his job to do that. Rather, like every other Government minister Woolas is there to remind his charges that they work for – and are paid to work for – us, the general public.

Strictly speaking, Woolas’ key function as immigration minister is to ensure that the incumbent bureaucratic regime dutifully follows the voters’ agenda as opposed to its own.

If Woolas genuinely believes that a core element of his role is to defend his officials against mass public opinion then he’s very much mistaken. What he should be doing is something to make our borders a little less porous than the pineapple deep beneath the sea in which SpongeBobSquarePants resides.

Might I suggest that, if he hasn’t already done so, Mr Woolas ought to read CONTEST2. There’s a serious counter-terrorism agenda in this country just now, and the immigration service needs to be doing a hell of a lot more to assist its realisation and development if we don’t want another 7/7 bloodbath (or, God forbid, much worse) on our hands.

Sending out the wrong message

Like Keith Vaz, I too am astonished that huge bonuses can be paid when the details of tens of thousands of immigrants have been lost in the ether. What sort of message does the latter send out to would-be terrorists from afar?

Who better to comment on the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report than a certain Damian Green. You remember him. Woolas’ opposite number in the Tory party who, not so long ago, had his life unceremoniously turned upside down (quite literally, if you’re talking about his home and Parliamentary office) by Brown and Co with a little help from the Met.

“This report,” Green tells us, “is further confirmation that the chaos inside the immigration system is not being sorted out”. Too true it isn’t. “Ministers have had years to deal with the backlog created by the collapse of controls after 1997, but it’s clear they haven’t succeeded.”

That’s probably why the immigration service bosses have pocketed the filthy lucre. In this country, whether it be public or private sector, we just love rewarding bungling failures of the highest order, don’t we? Managers are somehow able to put every foot wrong in the surety that it’s their workaholic, downtrodden soldiers who’ll end up carrying the can.

The Home Affairs Select Committee is said to be “most dissatisfied” with officials’ deadline of 2011 for clearing the backlog of applications. The Committee members want to see all cases going back three years and more completed more swiftly, and certainly by September next year.

Not unreasonable. If that doesn’t come to pass then, far from being rewarded with a bonus, those responsible for this potentially dangerous and terror-laden mess ought to be summarily chopped off at the ankles.

In praise of RUSI

A few short weeks ago, RUSI – the Royal United Services Institute – was deservedly recognised by Prospect magazine as Foreign Policy Think Tank of the Year. RUSI’s director Michael Clarke must be a very proud man, and rightly so.

This is a superb organisation providing cutting-edge analysis, in-depth research and incisive insight that underpins the vital, wider public discussion being had on national defence and security issues.

At present, RUSI is leading the defence review debate. According to the latest papers published as part of the Future Defence Review series, Britain must face up to hard strategic choices in the very immediate future regardless of the cuts made by the Government in relation to our defence budget.

RUSI argues that Britain simply has to reappraise the ‘fundamental propositions’ that define its global strategies. You’ll not hear any argument from this corner on that statement. The body also argues that our Armed Forces ought to consider “a radical new mission” of working to reform and assist international institutions. Again, that assertion’s right on the money.

On top of all that, RUSI is calling for “increasing co-operation” between the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. The Government is always banging on about ‘joined-up thinking’, so let’s have some where it arguably matters most.

You’ll be interested to learn that RUSI has just issued the first edition of its Focus Newsletter, at the same time redesigning its website.

The Newsletter contains updates on the latest research initiatives, publications and events (the organisation recently held a superb conference on security issues surrounding the 2012 Olympics, for example) as well as highlights of commentary and analyses posted online.

Take a look at the improved website, apply for membership, access the Newsletter and take part in the debate about our national security.

The more high level practitioners that involve themselves in these talks the better – this issue has never been more important than it is today.

Gone… but never, ever to be forgotten

To finish this last SMT Online Editor’s View prior to the Christmas break, permit me to pay tribute to my long-standing colleague and great friend Alan Hyder, the Editor of Security Management Today’s (SMT) sister publication Security Installer these past 15 years who departed UBM Live’s offices last Friday having presided over the magazine’s final print edition.

When I was deliberating whether or not to take on SMT in late 2000, it was Alan’s wise counsel that really tipped the balance. I can only thank him for helping me to make the best career move of my working life.

Alan eased me through ‘The Early Stages’ of my tenure when I knew little of this wonderful industry and profession in which we all find ourselves. He skilfully advised me on which hooks I might like to hang SMT’s collective hat. Those words of wisdom were invaluable, and helped me so, so much.

Not long after I started working in tandem with him, Alan became the first journalist in this sector to win an editorial gong – the BSIA Chairman’s Award for Security Installer’s excellent ACPO Unscrambled campaign which I know was of massive benefit to so many engineers and contracting managers.

In terms of the world of work, Alan’s tenure on Security Installer was characterised by his studious nature, and the ease with which he engaged so professionally with colleagues. He never missed a deadline on anything – be it the journal, newsletters, marketing collateral, reports. Juggling 20 plates at the same time was a doddle for him. It’s not a common skill by any means.

The best magazine ever for engineers

Alan made Security Installer his own. It stands today as easily the best journal ever produced for engineers and contractors in this country and, I would argue, worldwide. It has never been surpassed, and never will be.

That’s all down to Alan and the excellent articles written by himself, Anthony Hildebrand (his deputy editor until i4s came along!) and the many regular contributors commissioned down the years. Among them Gerard Honey, Mike Lynskey and Alex Carmicheal (not to mention the product Bench Testers who played such a vital role in the magazine’s content).

In this materialistic, ‘I’m alright Jack’ era there are not many people whom you would or indeed could call a true Gentleman, but Alan Hyder is one of them. Hugely respected and admired by his peers at UBM and everyone in the security sector, this is a man who holds all of the right values and always conducts himself in the best possible fashion.

I shall miss the after hours banter in the office here at Blackfriars when Alan and I would be working late, interspersing editorial tasks with discussions about the current news agenda, the industry itself, politics and policing, climate change and one of Alan’s great loves – music.

Alan… I know you’ll be reading this, so let me once again – publicly this time, and on behalf of your colleagues both here at UBM Live and across the industry at large – wish you the very best of success and good fortune in the years ahead. You deserve both in bucketloads!

I trust you’ve enjoyed this year’s SMT Online Editor’s Views, and I look forward to engaging with all of you once again come the New Year.

It just remains for me to say that I hope you, your families and friends have a very Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous 2010.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: The Politics of Police Reform

In his new guise as president of ACPO, Sir Hugh Orde has certainly set the cat among the pigeons with clarion calls for police reform. Do his theories stack up? Brian Sims provides an impassioned appraisal.

Having said so very little since he took office that I’d almost forgotten him altogether, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has not been backward in coming forward to support ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde’s bold statements on the perceived need for radical policing reform.

Substantial reform underpinned (in no small way, it must be said) by controversial proposals for force mergers.

For his part, Sir Paul – whose light has presumably been hidden under New Scotland Yard’s corporate communications bushel in a bid to banish from memory the disgraceful hounding of Tory MP Damian Green – has recently made reference to a ‘patchwork’ of police forces in the UK, the smaller ones in particular allegedly struggling to cope with serious and organised crime that’s often international in both origin and execution.

Haven’t we – and, indeed, Sir Paul – been here before, though? In 2003, I well remember Stephenson submitting a report to the Home Office in which he championed the instigation of a number of recommendations, not least this political and social ‘hot potato’ of force coalescence.

Six years on, our Top Cop is somewhat disappointed that little progress has been made (certainly in terms of tackling serious and organised crime, anyway). Speaking in The Times only last Thursday, Sir Paul stated: “I think the problems present then [in 2003] are, to some extent, still present now.”

One look at the crime statistics – not the Government’s heavily massaged ones, but the real scenarios played out on a daily basis in the national media – would suggest that Stephenson has this time hit the nail squarely on the head.

The Home Office White Paper

This whole merger debate has resurfaced at a time when, like most of us, police forces are being placed under constant pressure to eke out cost savings. On occasion, however, there’s only so much fat you can trim before the whole deck of cards collapses.

A forthcoming Home Office White Paper is fully expected to encourage voluntary mergers – that should please both Sirs, then – and, at the same time, an increased collaboration between neighbouring forces.

With a General Election in the wings, the Conservative Party’s policy on policing reform is – sadly, like many of their plans – still in its formative stages.

One Tory idea to emerge to date concerns the massively controversial desire for replacing police authorities — at present comprised of councillors and appointed members — with single, elected police commissioners who would oversee the work of given forces.

More anon of what is, for many in the police service, a jewel-encrusted rapier of a suggestion.

First, though, let’s look in a little more detail at what Sir Hugh Orde – who, in my view, should have been appointed Met Commissioner – has been saying since he stepped down as chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and sat in the ACPO ‘hot seat’ barely three months ago.

He wants more emphasis on public order tactics and training, with greater focus on considerations towards Human Rights. No real surprises there, as Sir Hugh dutifully oversaw the Patten Review in Northern Ireland where said Rights were (and still are) at the core of policing in the Province.

Sir Hugh doesn’t feel that Human Rights considerations are an obstacle to good policing, but I’m not entirely sure I’d agree with him there. Too many oily defence briefs prepared to turn a blind eye towards morality in favour of their bank balance have blatantly used the Human Rights Act as a buffer that has – more often than is healthy – protected the guilty.

That aside, focusing on Human Rights would provide a welcome antidote to the Government’s target culture of the last few years. A rancid culture that has transformed policing into a number-crunching exercise rather than one that really delivers the style of service – and, more importantly, the results – that tax payers wish to see for their money.

Only this morning, Denis O’Connor – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary – suggested in The Daily Telegraph that policing has lost its way amid the “noise and clutter” of Government targets and laws.

O’Connor has called for a return to the ideals and vision of Sir Robert Peel, who once said: “The police are the public, and the public are the police”. Spot on.

Tax payers want protection, reassurance and the defence of our civil liberties. Not much to ask, really, from the alleged defenders of our social faith (and I’m not counting PCSOs in their number, by the way).

Apparent political indifference

The barely latent spectre of international terrorism and cross-border organised crime are huge issues which the police must address.

It’s pretty obvious the 44 forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland are struggling to cope, largely due to political interference most readily manifested in the aforementioned targets but also, it has to be said (and rather perversely), as a result of apparent political indifference.

Put simply, there doesn’t seem to be much (if any) political will – and even less Westminster-based enthusiasm – to address this issue of policing reform, probably because the solution is every bit as complex a task to fathom as would be the case if one were to attempt to unravel the genuine elements of any given MP’s expenses claims over the past decade and more.

Is it really fair of Sir Hugh to suggest that this debate on policing reform and restructuring has somehow been ‘hijacked’ by the citizens and voters who merely want to see some Bobbies on the Beat?

Just like throwing even more money down the NHS gravy drain (yes, I did mean to say drain) hasn’t helped with the reduction of waiting lists and hospital closures in towns where the latter are desperately needed, the slavish quest for more ‘Beat Cops’ is probably not the complete answer.

As a rule, local on foot Bobbies – very important though they are, and always will be – don’t tend to catch serious terrorists. They don’t apprehend serial rapists. Rarely do they solve murders.

However, the local Boys in Blue are a vital link in the chain, and I for one feel safer in my own neighbourhood on the ultra rare occasion they hove into view either on foot (highly unlikely), with benefit of mountain bike (slightly less unlikely) or in a patrol car (blink and you’ll probably miss them).

Best possible structure for all concerned

Not unreasonably, Sir Hugh is calling for “an independent, thoughtful but not long-winded” review of policing.

The $64,000 question is this: what’s the best possible policing structure we can put in place to deal with the myriad threats now facing us?

Sir Hugh’s ideas primarily centre on the amalgamation of forces into regional units that might deal with both high-level crime and occurrences of criminality at the local level. If realised, his proposals could lead to the number of police forces being cut to less than ten so-called ‘super forces’.

As far as Sir Hugh’s concerned, the British brand of policing is a really important one to safeguard. He has “yet to find another model” in which he “would feel more comfortable as a citizen”.

By extension, almost, British policing would “continue to be founded on consent, the minimum use of force, minimal interference in the lives of citizens and operational independence for chief officers”.

That last statement is perhaps the most telling and important point of them all. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling is still waiting for the ink to dry on his outline of how the Conservatives are committed to directly-elected local commissioners with powers to hire and fire chief constables, and set budgets and policing priorities in England and Wales. The overriding aim? To improve police accountability.

An intelligent, quick-thinking man of strong moral backbone, Sir Hugh warns that several chief constables would quit rather than serve under such direct political control.

Should the Tories come to power and enforce their planned move, Sir Hugh would “be deeply uncomfortable” and might even leave office “if the principles of British policing were compromised.”

Political influence: it’s a two-way street

Sir Hugh has insisted time and again that there should be no perception of political influence in policing whatsoever. I agree 100%, but that process demands transparency and adherence on both sides of the fence.

Chief constables, we are told, fully comprehend the need to be held accountable, but at the same time warn that direct local political control would distort their policing priorities.

Sir Hugh himself has commented: “You cannot have a democratic society where the police are controlled, or are even perceived to be controlled, by anyone in a political position.”

Undoubtedly, in this regard the Government has stuck its woefully misguided oar in on far too many occasions – the Damian Green episode and Jacqui Smith’s non-covert preference for Sir Paul to take over from Sir Ian Blair among them – but by the same equation plenty of chief officers have seen fit to nail their political colours to the mast, rabidly courting favour in the House when they should remain impartial at all times.

On that basis, I would politely suggest to Sir Hugh that he ought first to have a word or two with a few of his colleagues on the politics of policing and put ACPO’s own house in order before any stones are thrown outwards.

Sticking with the ACPO theme for a moment longer, this body has long been criticised for a perceived lack of transparency, and for demonstrating direct involvement in operational policing despite the fact that we are talking about what is a limited company.

I’ve never quite understood how that works and neither, for that matter, have many of my esteemed colleagues in the security profession. It’s not a situation that sits well with us in relation to what is, in essence, a bunch of volunteers banding together to drive forward policies (and consistency within those policies).

To be blunt, ACPO should resist all temptation to script any further codes and manuals.

As a basic exercise in law enforcement, the discipline of policing is partly scientific, but – just like security – much of it is common sense (and, not to put too fine a point on it, something of an art form in its own right). Over-complicate this process and that’s when the fog descends. In short, ACPO probably needs to back off a bit.

Workable blueprint for policing?

Is Sir Hugh Orde’s blueprint for policing – and the creation of those impressive-sounding ‘super forces’ – a sound one in the cold light of November 2009 day? There are many whose response to that question would be in the negative.

Grouping anti-social behaviour with acts like dog fouling and bike riding in the wrong places isn’t really the best way for Sir Hugh to win over the public. The former is what makes life intolerable for many, and yet nothing is being done about it.

Reports of vicious, unprovoked beatings, callous rapes, knifings, shootings and muggings are commonplace in today’s society.

Families – and, in some instances, entire neighbourhoods – are being ground down by brain cell-bereft louts who have no respect for anyone or anything. Again, it appears to me that nothing of any substance is being done to sort them out.

Often, we’re told by the authorities not to confront vandals or yobs who, for example, stick their dirty feet on train and bus seats where decent people wearing expensive suits have to sit later in the day, smash shop windows with abandon or burn litter bins. We cannot be seen to offend by way of challenge. It’s not the done thing.

Maybe the average citizen could (and would) do something about this kind of behaviour if they knew a police officer or two were close by and that the Judiciary would play its part by handing down meaningful punishment.

Under a ‘Super Force State’, who’s going to deal with the screaming, drunken, bullying and vomiting knuckle-scrapers of a Friday and Saturday night? What about the drug addicts shooting up in the alleyway? Such anti-social behaviour absolutely cannot be ignored and must never be trivialised.

Many would suggest that Janet Street-Porter’s ‘Yoof of Today’ are the most prominent form of terrorist in our midst and, given the levels to which society has now sunk, I reckon you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone that would fundamentally disagree with that assertion.

Policing by consent… but is it?

In addition, why do we always hear this mantra that the police service wishes to retain policing by consent? Is that what we really have in this country? Some would say not, and that any such statement is little other than platitudinous drivel.

Consent by whom and for what purpose, exactly? In order to consent to something, surely you first have to be asked what it is you want to support?

We should be talking about policing by public consent. Mind you, the Government didn’t think twice about not asking us if we wanted these ill-fated and costly scraps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither will it ask us if we wish to sell England down the river by shelving the pound.

The politicians will never consult with Joe Public because they know damn well what the answer would be. Our ‘consent’ to policing is, if we’re honest with ourselves, really about as fictional as our soon-to-occur expression of democratic will and intent at next summer’s General Election.

The ideal ‘end game’ as far as policing’s concerned is that we need national forces to tackle serious crime and to quell terrorism, with greatly strengthened local policing services retained in order to mop up petty crime and anti-social behaviour.

In truth, any retention of age-old county/city-based set-ups merely to preserve the status quo of top jobs (and the over-inflated salaries that go with them) is not only pointless but arguably wasteful in the extreme.

Anyway, in all of this talk about police reform we seem to have missed the truism that fighting crime is all about ‘the deterrent’. At present, our prisons don’t hold any fear for the criminal fraternity. They’re not much more than an occupational hazard.

The day we began treating inmates with kid gloves and gave them ridiculous luxuries like portable TVs, PlayStations and gyms and so on was the day the rot set in.

Prison is supposed to be a correctional medium wherein privileges are removed due to serious wrongs having been committed, not a holiday camp from which Mr Bang-To-Rights can glibly continue to run his drugs cartel by way of a smuggled-in BlackBerry Curve.

Bobby on the Beat: a luxury

Until and unless the public is demonstrably willing to fund a massive increase in policing numbers, the Bobby on the Beat will remain a luxury.

Is that a problem? Anecdotal evidence from within says not. If you believe what the rank and file police officers are saying, it’s the patrol car officer that’s doing all the work, it seems. They’re the ones putting wrongdoers in front of Judges.

That said, however much beat patrols may be disparaged by certain newer members of the police service and dubbed either ineffective or unproductive (or both), there are plenty of old school coppers who’ll gladly tell you this form of policing produces lots of vital low-level intelligence, at the same time preventing plenty of crime and disorder. The very happenings that most upset and rile the law-abiding citizen on a daily basis.

Sadly, we have to accept the fact that the deterrent effect of a police uniform is negligible (which, to my mind, says everything about the society in which we live). TV programmes like Nightwatch, Brit Cops and Booze Britain tell us that the trouble-makers know even if they’re arrested and charged the system will not punish them.

Perhaps the most pressing need in all of this is to examine the potential separation of criminal policing from terrorist policing.

Terrorism is without doubt the greatest threat to us all in the grand scheme of things, but it’s the day-to-day ‘clean up’ of the UK’s streets that most concerns the average rate-payer. That’s where Sir Hugh Orde and Co’s skills and mindset ought to be focused.

Tips from the West Midlands

For some tips on how to balance local policing with the strategic requirement to deal with serious crime and terrorism, Sir Hugh could do worse than appraise the work of Chris Sims (we’re not related, by the way), the forward-thinking chief constable of West Midlands Police.

The basic operational command units of Britain’s second biggest policing concern – all 21 of them, and all of which have been thoroughly mired in New Labour’s ludicrous target-based system – are being dumped in favour of ten redefined force areas. These will broadly mirror the local authority borders and, what’s more, directly serve their communities.

Sims – who supports Sir Hugh Orde’s call for reform – is most insistent that each local division is to carry out local policing duties. Officers will be on the streets. They’ll be engaging with the people, combating low-level crime and stamping out the anti-social behaviour all of us right-minded individuals find so utterly stomach-churning.

This chief constable sees no contradiction at all between the demand for local policing and the need for regional policing. Neither, for that matter, do I.

It’s fair to say that the restructuring of the West Midlands Police could become the model for building larger forces while still retaining that most vital concentration on communities. In time, we shall see.

Ultimately, given the financial pressures currently constricting the public purse, there has never been a better or indeed a more appropriate moment for a serious debate to be kick-started on what society expects – and demands – from its police service.

Will ACPO and the politicians involve us mere tax-paying citizens in that discussion? If they don’t, Sir Hugh Orde’s vision of a police service that’s “fit for purpose” will have as much chance of being realised as I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! has of winning the Nobel Prize for Broadcasting.

Warning over intercept evidence

I greatly enjoyed interviewing The Security Institute’s president Lord Carlile of Berriew QC in The SMT SELECT Lounge at last summer’s IFSEC.

That’s one of the reasons why I was extremely interested to note his opinion that allowing intercept evidence in terrorism trials would “be wholly at odds with the national interest”.

As the Government’s impartial advisor on such issues, and the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, His Lordship is very firmly opposed to allowing any evidence whatsoever originating from phone taps to be permissible as evidence in legal trials.

“Despite my willingness for it to be introduced in appropriate circumstances,” stated Lord Carlile, “I have yet to see any material to justify the conclusion that the permitting of such evidence in terrorism cases would do more good than harm.”

This intervention in what has become a long-running debate will no doubt send shivers through the opposition parties and civil liberties campaigners alike, many of whom have argued that such procedures could well be used to secure more terrorism-related convictions than is the case at present.

Reports suggest both MI5 and the police service are concerned that the requirement for transcribing hundreds of hours of conversations would place an unrealistic and heavy burden on them. Fair point, particularly so when set against available policing manpower.

They also fear that surveillance and monitoring techniques could be revealed if intercept evidence were made public in our Courts of Law. Again, that’s a fair point to make.

With the proviso that, following a review, change would be instigated if deemed necessary, when all’s said and done I would side with Lord Carlile on this issue.

It’s all about your DNA… again

Around the same time that I became Editor of Security Management Today in 2000, (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair was running around town boasting that he’d have the DNA of every criminal on record within three years.

Like a lot of other promises made by New Labour, it never happened. Quelle surprise. Things can only get better? How true.

Now, fanning the flames of controversy stoked by what many deem to be the rise of the Surveillance State and ongoing erosions of necessary privacies, suggestions are rife that the Boys in Blue can be prone to arrest people solely for the purpose of catching DNA samples and adding them to the national database (which I wrote about in my last SMT Online Editor’s View). Another one of those famous targets, no doubt?

By law, of course, members of the police service are permitted to demand DNA samples from anyone arrested for a recordable offence. Samples may be obtained post-arrest, but not if there’s a report for summons.

Independent Government watchdog and advisor the Human Genetics Commission wants to see a major overhaul of the system, and is calling for a set of rules that pinpoint when (and under what circumstances) it’s right for the police to take DNA.

Akin to the debate on evidence interception, the Commission wishes a public discussion to be had on the matter because “there’s very little concrete evidence” on how useful this database – which contains more than five million individual profiles, by the way – really is when it comes to investigating acts of criminality.

Are we entertaining ‘function creep’?

The Commission’s chairman, Professor Jonathan Montgomery, is now talking of the database suffering from “function creep”, whereupon it has morphed from originally existing as a database of offenders to become one of suspects.

In other words, large numbers of people are on board because they’ve been arrested by the police rather than convicted by the Courts.

Montgomery also mentions the creation of “a spiral of suspicion” among those already perturbed by the State’s ever-increasing powers of intrusion.

The Government’s attitude towards DNA retention has engendered a ridiculous situation wherein, in some cases it seems, people are being arrested solely for the police to harvest their DNA. Under New Labour, everyone’s a potential suspect.

No bunch more so, in fact, than the politicians themselves. I always said the House of Commons was the biggest seat of corruption in the land. The expenses scandal merely proves the point.

One forms the impression that many of our Westminster ‘bastions of virtue’ would sell their granny if they thought it would gain them political and/or monetary advantage.

In line with proposals for another Royal Commission on The Future of Policing, let’s have one on politics and politicians, too.

Bring to account those who cannot account for – nor pick up the pieces of – their own actions, let alone those of the rest of us.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Life for a knife

Sentencing for knife-wielding murderers, terror suspects and DNA, plans to strengthen RIPA, nuclear site security and Sir Ian Blair… Brian Sims offers strident opinions on the tense world where security and Government collide.

Well, well, well. Justice Secretary (and former Home Secretary) Jack Straw announced this very week that the low life in our society who take to the streets with knives – and subsequently kill someone with one of them – will face a minimum of 25 years in jail for their actions.

That raises the ‘tariff’ from a standard 15 years, and comes in the wake of a sentencing review ordered in the summer following criticisms in the mass media dished out – and quite rightly so – by the parents of Ben Kinsella, the 16-year-old brother of former EastEnders star Brooke who was stabbed to death in Islington last June.

Straw, who’s said to want this new legislation in place come the first quarter of 2010, told Parliament: “I propose to introduce a new adult starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment for murder when a knife or other weapon is carried to the scene with the intention of using that weapon.”

Employing all the voter-friendly vocabulary, Straw continued: “The loss of a loved one under any circumstances is heartbreaking. Even more so when they’re the victim of a senseless and appalling murder. It’s only right that thugs who carry knives with the intention of using them, potentially to kill if the opportunity arises, should go to prison for a long time.”

The menace on our streets

Apparently, Straw is “determined to do everything” within his power to tackle the “menace of knife crime” on our streets.

“This Government is very clear that if someone is caught carrying a knife there will be very serious consequences.” The current Government being clear on something? That would certainly make a nice change.

Let’s look at the facts. The proposed change relates directly to the so-called ‘start point’ used by Judges when they set a minimum tariff on life sentencing for the crime of murder. In truth, the bar could be set higher or lower than 25 years depending on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In addition, Courts jailing juvenile killers will stick at the ‘start point’ of 12 years.

Interestingly – and not without controversy – Straw has seemingly stopped short of putting knife murderers on a par with those who would use firearms to commit their criminal acts. The latter face at least 30 years’ detention (in terms of sentencing, anyway) at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

What’s the difference between the two? Can anyone from the Cabinet enlighten me, please?

And by the way, Mr Straw, not doing anything to raise the limits for juvenile offenders is little other than a red rag to a bull. If you were wondering why kids carry knives in their tuck boxes, now you know.

Statistics have told us that four-in-five knife offenders have avoided any kind of prison term. Not surprising, really. If Judges have to continually take the aforementioned ‘mitigating circumstances’ into account then how are we ever going to have a sentencing system that’s equitable and fair?

Even 25 years may not be enough

If you deliberately kill someone with a knife (or any other implement, for that matter), you go to jail for life. Simple, isn’t it? Or rather it should be.

Increased sentencing plans are all well and good, but without the Government cutting the masses of red tape they’ve tied us all up with so that more police can be released on to our streets to catch criminals and more prisons can be built to house society’s unwanted, there’s every chance Straw’s vote-grabbing words will prove to be yet another empty gesture.

Far be it from me to be cynical, but anyone would think a General Election was just around the corner.

For certain crimes, I’d suggest that even 25 years isn’t enough. Murderers are still being let out having served only half of their allotted time of incarceration. It’s a disgrace.

Of course, there’s a massively controversial alternative. One that, for crimes like murder, might well be construed by some as better, fairer, quicker, less expensive (for the already very beleaguered tax payer) and that would reduce the crime rate on a permanent basis.

Going down that route, though, would see the Human Rights contingent rise up in arms. “What about the people who are really innocent? How do we know for sure that individuals are guilty?” Their point is an entirely valid one to make. We should never countenance the death penalty in what purports to be a civilised society.

Down the years, we’ve witnessed brash scenes on the late-night news bulletins of – apparently no longer in the wrong – alleged murderers and terrorists punching the air as they’re let out of prison on appeal after some new shred of evidence miraculously appears to disprove the original belief that they were, in fact, guilty as charged.

All I would say on that particular point is this: if they didn’t do what they were supposed to have done, then who did? Where are the follow-up investigations and convictions to bring the real criminals to justice?

Who speaks for Kunal Mohanty?

I’ve no doubt that Liberty and all of the other politically correct supporters of the Human Rights Act believe their stance is one founded on the very best of intentions, but they ought to remember a vital truism.

First and foremost, those who deserve basic Human Rights above anyone else are the decent, law-abiding members of the public, all of whom must harbour the right to dwell peacefully in a civil and safe society.

Kunal Mohanty had that right. Last March, the 30-year-old Indian naval officer was in Glasgow to sit his captain’s examinations at the city’s Nautical College, but Christopher Miller was determined that he wouldn’t have the opportunity to do so.

Poor Kunal was out walking with three friends of his in the Gorbals district of Scotland’s finest city when, unprovoked, Miller shouted racial abuse and then pounced on Mohanty, slashing his throat with a blade.

Police and doctors who later attended the scene described the assault as one of the worst they’d ever seen.

To compound matters, as Mohanty – who was about to become a father for the first time – lay dying in the street, 25-year-old Miller and his mate John McGrory were caught on CCTV. Post-assault, they were seen embracing and punching their fists in the air. Miller even completed an SPL-style goal-scoring celebration by pulling his top over his head.

In the same week that Straw attempted to be ‘tough on crime’, Miller was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. He’ll probably be out in ten, by which time he’d have reached the ripe old age of 35. In other words, the best part of his life will still be ahead of him.

What about Kunal Mohanty? Who speaks for him? He no longer has a life, while his soon-to-be-born child will be denied a birth father.

Locked away for good

Judge John Beckett QC said to Miller in the Courtroom: “Everyone in this city and this country should feel shame for what you did?” I’m pretty sure they do, Judge Beckett.

Lesley Thomson – area procurator fiscal for Glasgow and Strathkelvin – later added: “Knife carriers have no place in our society, and people who act like Miller have no place in our society.”

Indeed they don’t, which is why Judge Beckett should have dished out a life sentence that means life. If people like Miller are capable of killing once they are more than capable of doing so again, no matter how many social workers and psychotherapists attempt to reinvent them behind bars. One need only point to the re-offending statistics to amply support this assertion.

Murderers must be locked up for good. Their dead victims aren’t going to be granted a second chance, so why the Hell should they?

A Home Office climbdown? Whatever next?

The news on knife crime sentencing comes in the same week as a Home Office climbdown – now there’s a rare occurrence (said the Editor with tongue firmly in cheek) – on DNA storage.

It has emerged that innocent people arrested but neither charged nor convicted of terror-related offences are to be treated separately to all other alleged crimes, with their fingerprints and any other genetic profiles retained (potentially, at least) on an indefinite basis.

By way of contrast, those found innocent of any other suspected crime will have their DNA records retained for a maximum of six years only.

As part of its climbdown, the Home Office plans to keep the profiles of children innocent of alleged minor crimes for three years rather than the six-year timescale originally mooted.

Those youngsters convicted of minor offences will have their details retained on the DNA database – which harbours the stats of anything up to one million innocent individuals at any given time – for five years, or indefinitely if found guilty of a second offence.

The Government had no option on this one. Home Secretary Alan Johnsons plans earlier this year would have seen some innocent peoples’ details remain on record for 12 years. An administrative and security nightmare waiting to happen, and completely unnecessary to boot.

On grounds of national security

Under the revised plans, which appear to be far better and certainly more practical, the DNA of those arrested over – but not charged or convicted for – terror offences will remain on the national database for a minimum of six years.

On the grounds of national security, senior ranking police officers will be able to review each case every couple of years to ascertain whether or not continued retention is warranted.

Johnson’s compatriot, the Home Office minister Alan Campbell, believes these revised proposals to be “proportionate” and that they’ll ensure the right people are on the database.

His own department’s document stresses that one in every ten murders and rapes from a sample size of just shy of 700 crimes were solved as a result of DNA matches to individuals not previously convicted of an offence.

There are those – Tory MP David Davis among them – who still feel the Government is continuing to demonstrate “astonishing degrees of ignorance and intransigence” over keeping the DNA profiles of innocent people on its central database.

Whatever your view, there’s one ‘immovable’ in all of this. The DNA database must remain reasonable and proportionate at all times and, just like CCTV, it has to be managed and used in such a way that it retains the full confidence of the general public.

Without that, the national security agenda will quickly degenerate into a busted flush. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Fear of being branded a criminal

Moving seamlessly on from DNA to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), did you know that anything up to 15,000 people have (allegedly) been wrongly branded criminals or accused of serious offences?

According to The Daily Telegraph’s Whitehall Editor Christopher Hope, fears are growing that this news “could deter innocent people from applying for jobs whose incumbents need to be scrutinised for fear of them being branded a criminal”.

Critics feel that simple errors could cost people their jobs and, in the longer term, ruin lives.

Official figures suggest that the number of upheld complaints in relation to CRB checks has more than doubled these last six years. In 2002-2003, the statistic in question stood at 1,111. Come 2008-2009, it has risen to 2,509.

A total of 15,320 complaints about checks have been upheld since the Bureau was established in 2002, and it’s thought that a significant number relate to individuals wrongly accused of criminal offences.

Over 11 million adults are going to need checking on a new database to be administered by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

“If the CRB cannot get factual data right,” opines Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, “then how on Earth can this new agency deal with anecdotal information without the risk of major injustices?” Quite.

I agree with David Green – the director of the Civitas ‘Think Tank’ – and Josie Appleton of the campaigning group that is The Manifesto Club. They assert that the system in place creates a false sense of security by placing far too much reliance on black and white paperwork and databases rather than any information received in person.

Surely employers would be better advised to use their personal knowledge and judgement when it comes to potential volunteers? This is the type of decision that ought to be taken by qualified people on the ground. Arriving at what are inevitably important conclusions based purely on reports and faxes isn’t always the most sage of policies.

The new vetting system is also going to be dealing with hearsay evidence, which can be muddy at best. Hardly a step in the right direction, is it?

Strengthening the use of RIPA

Interestingly, new measures have also been announced by David Hanson – the minister of state for security, counter-terrorism, crime and policing – that are designed to strengthen the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (more commonly known, of course, as RIPA).

A public consultation conducted by the Government received over 200 responses – not a huge feedback, by any means – and Hanson and Co will now bring forward legislation to implement change.

The idea is that the level of authorisation required by local authorities to sign-off on investigatory techniques will be raised to prevent them from being used for trivial matters. Following the public consultation on RIPA, a senior executive now has to approve how – and when – the techniques are used to pursue criminality.

Elected councillors in each local authority are also required to oversee the use of RIPA. New guidance will be published on how authorities should use RIPA.

The Government is keen to “clarify the test of necessity and proportionality so that techniques will not be used to investigate dog fouling or people putting their bins out a day early” – surprising that none of us liked that idea, isn’t it? – and “treat covert surveillance of legal consultations as ‘intrusive’ rather than ‘directed’, meaning that it can only be carried out by a very limited number of public officials.”

It’s fairly clear that a wide range of public authorities need to be able to authorise key techniques under RIPA in order to protect us mere innocents from those who would seek to do us harm.

That said, those same public authorities should not – and should not be allowed to – overstep the mark. They must respect our right to privacy, and only use techniques under RIPA when it’s necessary and proportionate to do so.

Will the new Government measures allow both of these objectives to be met? Only time will tell.

Cumbria: ‘open’ for business

On Monday, energy minister Ed Milliband announced the Government’s provisional go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations courtesy of its National Policy Statement.

More specifically, the declaration confirms the location of no less than ten sites deemed suitable for future nuclear plants. They include three – Sellafield (couldn’t have predicted that one), Braystones and Kirkstanton – which just happen to be in Cumbria.

Prior to this – on 28 October – the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) issued a news release confirming the sale of 190 hectares of land to the north of the existing nuclear facility at Sellafield for a cool £70 million. The buyers? A consortium made up of Iberdrola SA, GDF Suez SA and Scottish and Southern Energy.

The sale of this site continues to add focus to the potential for new nuclear build on Britain’s ‘Energy Coast’, in addition to those sites already put forward by the NDA and the two by RW NPower at the aforementioned Braystones and Kirkstanton locations.

According to a statement I received from law firm Martineau, the Cumbrian Economic Strategy for the period 2009-2019 encompasses £1.4 billion of regeneration funding and capital projects, including new marinas and water-based regeneration projects at Barrow, Maryport, Workington and Kendal, new academy schools and a raft of what’s known as ‘business clusters’.

A dozen longer term projects have also been identified, including the regeneration of the University of Cumbria’s satellite sites, tidal energy projects and the mixed use regeneration of the 425-hectare site in the Derwent Forest. All of them commendable.

Talking about a revolution

Back in February, Secretary of State for Business, Administration and Skills Lord Mandelson made positive comments on new nuclear build and low carbon economic opportunities in Cumbria. There was even talk of an ‘industrial revolution’ of sorts.

This is all very laudable and (with the promise of job creation) another piece of clever spin from an ailing Government desperate for kind words from just about anywhere, but what about the security implications of this sweet talk?

Cumbria is a beautiful County, but it’s already one frequently plagued by an influx of naïve protestors who would rather this nation gave up its nuclear capability altogether and became The Vulnerable Man of Europe (not to say the developed world).

These plans could greatly increase the numbers of such ‘peaceful’ nay-sayers who think it’s acceptable to harass nuclear workers from dawn ‘til dusk.

Sellafield directly employs around 10,000 people and is one of the two largest, non-governmental employers in West Cumbria (along with BAE Systems at Barrow-in-Furness). Approximately 90 per cent of employees originate from West Cumbria, so I understand the argument for further development.

Due to the increase in local unemployment following any run down of Sellafield operations, the NDA is concerned that this needs to be managed.

Let’s just hope the vital, high level security measures that will need to be put in place and stringently managed by the Government (and yet don’t warrant a mention in any of the material I’ve read on these proposals) are being adequately addressed now that our Critical National Infrastructure is continually at risk from the terrorist threat.

What about an incident communication plan?

Speaking of potential ‘fallout’ – if you’ll pardon the pun – from any given security incident (nuclear-related or otherwise), it’s really loose tongues and prolonged national media attention that can wreak catastrophic effects on business in any sector. If you don’t believe me, ask Gerald Ratner.

To avoid such scenarios, security managers and their Boards of Directors ought to know how to take control following an incident. In this way, they can deliver an immediate response to the waiting scribes with a good degree of confidence and aplomb.

Building on the demonstrable success of its BS 25999-1 business continuity standard, the BSI has published a book specifically aimed at security and risk managers that guides them smoothly through the pitfalls of incident communications strategy.

Expertly pieced together by Jim Preen (an Oxford University-educated consultant and businessman), it will help managers think like journalists (feel free to call me for some advice on that subject!) while at the same time anticipating the questions they may face.

The book covers diverse elements including the establishment of an incident website, the importance of call cascades, how to run successful press conferences, how to set up and run and incident Press Room, post-incident evaluation and testing your plans.

Communication Strategies: Write Your Incident Communication Plan Now is well worth a read.

Policing Controversy in print

As regular readers will know, I’m an avid viewer of BBC1’s political debating ‘bear pit’ that is Question Time. I even follow the programme on Twitter.

Last night’s instalment was pretty flat, to be fair, notable only for regular chair David Dimbleby’s absence, journalist and social commentator Will Self’s beautifully acerbic broadsides and more than several incisive socio-political observations from double Olympic gold medallist rowing star James Cracknell.

One week earlier, on Bonfire Night no less, we were treated to Sir Ian Blair being one of the panel members.

In a performance that I found to be pretty unremarkable for a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Blair continued to hint at the political leanings he appeared so readily to adopt when ensconced at the Yard.

I say this merely as a lead-in. Also a week or so ago, my esteemed colleague Alan Hyder – Editor of SMT Online’s sister security news medium Security Installer – pointed out that Blair had just published an account of his 45 turbulent months as Commissioner in a book entitled Policing Controversy.

All of the controversial moments are duly noted: the 7/7 suicide bombings in London, the infamous Stockwell shooting incident, the Cash for Honours inquiry and the Tarique Ghaffur episode among them.

Blair studied at Oxford University, and talks of the “minor but irritating streak of upper class nastiness” he believes he experienced at his Alma Mater. There’s a classic quote, too: “I understood very clearly for the first time that those with money and supposed breeding did not expect their children to be arrested.”

Shouldn’t senior policemen remain politically and socially neutral, whatever their personal beliefs may be?

Serving the public interest

Blair is clearly angered and aggrieved about his office having been convicted on Health and Safety grounds for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. If you remember, the Independent Police Complaints Commissions inquiry took two years and, according to Blair, “every opportunity to be as unforgiving as possible.”

That’s exactly what an independent complaints commission is meant to be, Sir Ian. If it isn’t then it’s not serving the public interest and there’s little or no point in it being there.

Writing about Blair’s book in The Times’ brilliant Culture supplement, the superb journalist and former Daily Telegraph and London Evening Standard editor Max Hastings states: “By focusing on his own beleaguerment, Blair conveys the sense of an institution forever on the back foot. His self-righteousness suggests a man unaccustomed to look in the mirror, save to check that his cap is straight. It simply will not do to assert, as he does, that the armed officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes ‘should each have been awarded the George Medal’ for courage.”

This book merely reinforces what many people believe – that Blair was a Commissioner who seemingly dismissed any operational criticisms, and didn’t appear to be fully in touch with what was happening on the ground.

Labour ‘luminaries’ such as Charles Clarke, Jack Straw and – most prominently of all – Jacqui Smith continually praised Sir Ian. The Tories did not, which is more than likely why (alongside his apparent disdain for the Conservative voting classes) he accused them of turning the Metropolitan Police Service into a political football of convenience.

The Tories aren’t the guilty party here. Rather, the blame for this development rests squarely with the actions and comments of not just Blair but also several other senior policemen who have misguidedly spent far too much time cuddling up to Westminster.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Reaching for CCTV compliance

The second CameraWatch Forum of 2009 was held on Tuesday in Edinburgh. On the day, having delivered his thoughts to the audience about where we’re going wrong with CCTV, Brian Sims noted several key points worthy of serious debate.

In all honesty, I must say that our decision to take Security Management Today into cyberspace late last year is paying massive dividends.

Almost 12 months on, readership figures for my SMT Online Editor’s View alone have already eclipsed those of the old print journal, feedback is both extensive and immediate and, most enjoyably of all, I’m now no longer tied to the desk and can spend far more time on that most important of tasks.

The task in question is being ‘in the industry’, attending all of the key conferences, seminars, evening lectures… You know the scene.

The Times of security publishing

During my tenure, the print version of Security Management Today came to be recognised as The Times/Daily Telegraph of this industry’s publishing mix. The impartial voice of authority and reason, its pages populated by the most important industry figureheads and jam-packed with comment (46 pages of Letters To The Editor across the 12 editions in 2006 alone).

That remains the case with SMT Online, of course, but now we’re spreading the content net much further and far wider.

Hence my socio-political commentaries, which seem to be going down a storm with all of you, in addition to the myriad security groups with which I’m now involved on LinkedIn and via Twitter, etc.

Anyway, as I said I’m now no longer having to miss events because of print deadlines. Not only that, I’m joining the industry’s ‘Speakers’ Corner’ in a big way. In the last few weeks, I’ve been a guest orator at the Security Industry Authoritys Small Business Network Forum, the Skills for Security National Conference (which took place at The RAF Museum in Hendon on 20 October) and the UK Leadership and Management Conference run by Securitas Security Services.

Oh yes. I managed to fit in the Keynote Speech at our own Security Excellence Awards last Thursday just for good measure!

The CameraWatch Forum at RBS

On Tuesday of this week, I put forward my views on where we’re going wrong with CCTV as part of CameraWatch’s latest Forum. This event was held at the RBS Bank’s plush global hq, located at Gogarburn on the outskirts of Edinburgh. So many interesting points emerged on the day I thought I’d share them with you. As always, your feedback on what’s to follow would be most welcome.

For those of you that either don’t know or know little of CameraWatch, let me explain what this fine organisation is all about.

It’s a completely independent, not-for-profit outfit launched a couple of years ago by Gordon Ferrie (a former senior policeman and head of group security at none other than RBS). Together with Paul Mackie (CameraWatch co-founder and its director of compliance), Ferrie has dedicated himself to promoting the value of CCTV system compliance with the Data Protection Act.

Ferrie and Mackie – along with chairman Pat Curran and supportive organisations including Norbain, JVC and Security Management Today – also wish to see compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Office’s own Code of Practice relating to the use of surveillance systems and personal data.

In addition to campaigning tirelessly for greater regulation of CCTV, CameraWatch also carries out thorough compliance audits on operational systems, while at the same time promoting awareness and education in relation to the legal requirements of data protection right across the private and public sector arenas. It’s a commendable remit to say the very least.

The CameraWatch Forum runs twice every year (I also spoke at the last event, held at Canary Wharf in March) and is described by Gordon Ferrie as “the engine room”. It’s where the movers and shakers in the surveillance world gather. Indeed, much of the comment generated from the Forum has been included in the all-new Lifecycle Guide to CCTV Compliance, which will be released for public consumption early next year.

Education on both sides of the fence

Ferrie is nothing if not passionate about what he does. He has sat on both sides of the fence, having been a user and buyer of CCTV in the private sector and a policeman having to request images for prosecution purposes. In short, he knows the surveillance score and, just now, he’s not at all happy with the negative comment CCTV is receiving (by way of Mick Neville and others).

Earlier this month, for example, Mike Press – professor of design policy at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design in Dundee – was quoted in The Times and then subsequently interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland (as pointed out by Ferrie in his opening gambit).

For those of you not au fait with Professor Press’ work, this highly respected academic has spent the past decade studying how design can contribute to crime reduction. Anyway, he duly told the UK’s leading broadsheet that the expensive (and expansive) policies adopted towards CCTV are, in his opinion, politically motivated and ineffectual.

Professor Press also warned, and in no uncertain terms, that surveillance can have the opposite effect of that intended, by luring UK plc’s citizens into a false sense of security and encouraging them to be careless with property and personal safety.

“As a society, we should question why we have CCTV,” suggested Professor Press. “Our civil liberties have been crushed, trampled upon and compressed, and this is part of that process. We’ve yet to see CCTV have any positive impact. I think we should have a moratorium on it.”

On top of that you need to add comments from individuals like Richard Thomas CBE, the former Information Commissioner, who once famously said – in both The Times and The Guardian, in fact – that “we could be sleepwalking into a Surveillance Society” (what with DNA databases, ID cards, the proliferation of CCTV and the like).

CCTV? It’s not a magic bullet

Professor Press quite correctly opines that many commentators portray CCTV as some kind of ‘magic bullet’ surely destined to rid society of all known ills. It isn’t, and it will not. Indeed, I said as much at the CameraWatch Forum.

Within his blog, it’s interesting to discover Professor Press openly venturing that he’s no expert on CCTV. He merely “tracks all of the research” in this area as part of his own continuing education amid the world of design and crime prevention.

He’s also mildly critical of the attempts made by national media journalists to discuss and debate the subject of surveillance.

On that theme, Professor Press points to “the over-simplification of complex issues” and asserts that “strong vested interests” – primarily the CCTV industry – are driving CCTV forward so much that it’s now stripping resources from “other, more effective crime strategies”.

Professor Press states: “Our civil liberties have taken a battering under this Government, and CCTV has been extended in its scope without any rational assessment of its efficacy or implications. That is not to say that it’s without any value in terms of crime prevention or detection. However, its future development and application should be informed by research and framed by politics rooted in social justice. Those are not the politics of David Cameron.”

Social justice? What social justice?

Well I for one do not see much in the way of social justice emanating from Gordon Brown’s sorry excuse for a Cabinet.

The bankers who’ve led us into the current financial meltdown – in turn costing the jobs and homes of thousands of decent, hardworking people – are already back on their obscene bonus gravy train.

At the same time, MPs who’ve been involved with ‘flipping‘ homes, shunned capital gains tax and claimed for absurd ‘expenses’ are now looking at safe retirement havens in the House of Lords when most right-minded members of the public feel they should instead be in front of a Judge. Where’s the social justice in that, Professor Press?

I’ve been a security journalist (and the Editor of Security Management Today) for the last decade. By now, I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about, whether the subject matter be CCTV, security officer licensing, protection regimes for our Critical National Infrastructure or whatever.

I’ve won three editorial awards from the industry during that time, so perhaps I have grasped the nettle to some decent extent.

Surveillance proves its worth

If we have “yet to see it [CCTV] have any positive impact”, how come surveillance was a key component in capturing the vicious young killers of poor James Bulger? Were the crystal clear images of the 7/7 bombers at Luton Station not proof of CCTV’s worth in the fight against terrorism?

What about the part surveillance played in the Jean Charles de Menezes episode, and the IPCC’s inquest over what happened during the G20 Summit protests in The City? I could go on.

In the full article, written by Lindsay McIntosh, Professor Press talks of CCTV companies promoting the crime-reducing benefits of their solutions in what he believes to be a “lazy approach to crime prevention”.

Not surprisingly, Gordon Ferrie is incandescent with rage over comments like this one. Yes, it emanates from a self-confessed non-expert, but if members of the public hear and/or read the same mantra time and again it’s not going to be long before they’ll start to believe it.

30 years ago, CCTV was held aloft as THE forensic science. We have to reclaim that situation and, importantly, maintain public confidence in surveillance technology and what it can achieve when manufactured, specified, installed, managed and used in the right way.

We already have to suffer the outcomes of a lawless society complete with an ineffectual judiciary and a police service continually constrained by central government. A lawless society in which gangs of youths rampage about the place knowing full well they’ll be let off with a few stern words.

Without CCTV, though, the situation would be ten times worse. We’d have Social Armageddon on our hands.

Major weapon for the police service

CCTV happens to be the major weapon in the police services’ armoury, as pointed out at the CameraWatch Forum by Jill Imery, chief superintendent and head of safer communities with the Lothian and Borders Police.

Imery’s views on CCTV and policing in this day and age were so refreshing to hear. “Complaints of assault made against officers by those they’ve captured and detained in custody suites have plummeted thanks to the installation of CCTV in these areas.” Excellent news, it must be said.

At least that will go some way towards combating the morally bankrupt claims culture now firmly in our midst.

Does it (ie CCTV) make a significant impact on violent crime and/or alcohol-related offending? Well, there’s lots of emotion involved in these types of crimes. My own father has always said: “When the drink’s in, the wit’s out”. People do tend to behave in an odd, not to say inhuman manner when they’re ‘tanked up’. No amount of cameras in pubs and clubs will change that.

Then again, that’s not CCTV’s remit. Societal morals and manners, ways of behaving and decency towards our fellow man should be taught in the home by responsible parents during childrens’ formative years. As Imery so superbly pointed out, we seem to have lost our moral compass in Brown’s Britain. “We’re seeing the children of those we arrested 20 years ago now being apprehended for the same offences.” No surprise there whatsoever.

Every miscreant dealt with by Imery and her colleagues is further evidence that society has failed in its duty. We need to address the malaise in which we now reside, re-examine the role of social workers and introduce compulsory parenting classes. We must take a long, hard look at an education system in which five A grades at A Level appears to be the norm, while a place at university renders nothing like the gravitas it once did.

Going to university used to be for the elite. Now, anyone can get in.

Imery was also spot on in opining that technology – CCTV included – is fundamentally changing and shaping the way in which we live, work and socialise. I for one don’t believe we can ever have too many CCTV cameras. If you have nothing to hide, and the Government of the day isn’t crooked in terms of how it processes data, I don’t see how the proliferation of surveillance cameras can be in any way harmful. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Budgetary constraints will mean the mixed economy of policing we see in the UK today is going to be the blueprint for the future. A fundamental element of this mixed economy is CCTV. That’s a fact no-one can deny, whether they’re an expert in the subject of surveillance or otherwise.

Mapping of CCTV systems

Brian Connel – chief inspector at Strathclyde Police, and also responsible for a community safety remit – examined how the mapping of CCTV systems will greatly assist investigations. All the while, Connel stressed that the “quality, compliance and value” of CCTV are vital. Dead right they are.

Connel believes that the police service is learning from CCTV and how to use it, in the main due to the passage of surveillance images through the judicial process. He was correct in saying that no end user should put in place rigid CCTV frameworks in response to a single issue that he or she hopes to solve.

Interestingly, just before we broke for coffee Gordon Ferrie was back at the lectern to tell us that Geoff Teale – programme manager at the National Policing Improvement Agency – has stated that 22 of the 44 recommendations for enhancement outlined by the National CCTV Strategy are now being put in place across England and Scotland.

What about Scotland, where the aforementioned scribe Lindsay McIntosh tells us that there are now 2,235 public space CCTV cameras compared with 1,269 in 2003? Perhaps we need some joined-up thinking here, folks.

Next month, I’m attending a Stakeholder engagement event in London wherein there’ll be an update – for CCTV and corporate security managers in both public and private sectors – on progress made to date with the National CCTV Strategy programme. Those Stakeholders will be asked questions like:

For what purpose does the business primarily use CCTV? Did/do the local police have any involvement with your CCTV operation? For how long do you hold recorded CCTV images? How do you measure the performance of your CCTV operation? Do you regard your CCTV as monitoring public space? Do you ‘share’ your real-time CCTV images with others?

Assuming that the meeting is not going to be conducted under a Chatham House Rules scenario I will, of course, let you know what’s said on the day.

The end user’s perspective

Views (if you’ll pardon the blatant pun) on CCTV in a large corporate organisation were expressed with great clarity by Alan Brown OBE QPM, the group security director at Tesco (but only after he’d waxed lyrical about ClubCards – fortunately I had mine with me!)

For an end user the size of Tesco, there are pivotal questions that demand to be asked (and answered) in relation to surveillance. How much does it cost? What benefits does it realise?

Brown told us that his organisation spends upwards of £13 million every year on CCTV. “Lots of people are convinced they know the true worth of CCTV,” suggested Brown. “Our Property Department certainly believes it does.”

The philosophy at Tesco seems to be one of achieving improved security by way of sound thought processes. “Too much of today’s decision-making on security is mired in 1990s thinking.” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement.

As my esteemed colleague and great friend Bobby Logue once suggested, there has been an overriding need to instruct the dinosaurs on how they might dance to a new tune.

Brown showed us a video interview with a reformed shoplifter. The man in question used to be a market trader with one of the major banks. Having developed a cocaine habit – not uncommon these days for those with heaps of expendable cash and no moral backbone – the bloke concerned lost his job and then chose to rob Tesco for a living. Marvellous.

On film, the chap said that CCTV neither deterred nor identified him, and that he was managing to steal £1,000 worth of goods every day from Tesco outlets. “CCTV does have a significant role to play in catching people like this,” countered Brown, “but with certain caveats attached.”

High quality CCTV playing its part

Brown and his team members identify lots of shoplifters. The only difficulty lies in interesting the local police in terms of what they’re doing in the area of low level crime prevention.

“When an offence escalates and becomes more serious, there’s most certainly an assumption about high quality CCTV playing its part, but of course that’s all post-incident,” sighed Brown. “As retailers, we need to be far more proactive in looking at things like crime trends and risks so that we know we’re locating cameras where they should be located.”

Shrinkage at Tesco last year stood at £182.8 million. Yes. You read it right. £182.8 million, and around 80% of that is due to theft from customers and staff combined.

The spend on security? A total of £103.7 million (including £71 million on guarding, the already-quoted £13 million on CCTV, £3.5 million on alarms, £1 million on ATM housings and a cool £500,000 shelled out for safes).

Brown is combating issues like scan avoidance at checkouts (either due to collusion or operator error) by engaging with new Electronic Point of Sale technology such as StopLift.

“The future of security in retail is all about integrated solutions,” he stressed, “and real-time analytical assessment. Facial recognition solutions in tandem with RFID focused on the valuable product ranges will be the way forward.”

What’s happening at the ICO?

Ken Macdonald from the Information Commissioner’s Office then examined how things are changing at the organisation. There’s a new Information Commissioner – Christopher Graham – now in place, about whom “all the vibes are positive”.

Thankfully, something’s being done (under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act) about private investigators attempting to ‘blag’ information. “£5,000 is not a big enough penalty for this offence,” said Macdonald.

The Ministry of Justice launched a consultation on 15 October, and there’s now talk of a 12-month sentence on summary conviction for this offence, or 24 months’ imprisonment upon indictment. About time, too.

Macdonald is adamant the ICO is no “toothless bulldog”. His organisation’s goal? “To strengthen public confidence by making it much easier to handle sensitive information.” Let’s see what Mr Graham can do, shall we?

Data Protection Compliance Assessment Scheme

In signing off, it would be wholly remiss of me not to make mention of Paul Mackie’s announcement concerning the launch of CameraWatch’s CCTV Data Protection Compliance Assessment Scheme (scheduled for 2010 alongside a new partnership training programme and the aforementioned Lifecycle Guide).

The aims of the scheme are simple: to raise the standards of Data Protection Act compliance in relation to CCTV, ensure buy-in for this from the public at large, increase awareness about the legal requirements to be observed when deploying CCTV, aid the detection and prevention of crime and preserve Human Rights.

In supporting and helping end user organisations to become fully Data Protection Act compliant, CameraWatch will award Platinum, Gold and Silver status to schemes once an assessment has concluded.

Platinum means that an installation is 100% compliant, Gold 85% and Silver 70%. All those who do not make Platinum status at the first time of asking will be assisted every step of the way until they pass muster.

The siting of cameras, access to images, CCTV signage, the security of captured data and the training of operators will all be taken into account during the assessments. Those assessments (not audits, but assessments) are totally independent and carried out by qualified personnel affiliated to CameraWatch.

“We kick-off in January,” explained Mackie in confident, purposeful voice.

Looks like the New Year could begin with a very rude awakening for those bereft of a thorough grounding in – and a distinct lack of awareness of – CCTV and how it relates to the DPA.

Until next time…

Security Goes Green: a contribution to Blog Action Day (Climate Change)

 

Join the debate on global climate change!

By Brian Sims, Editor, Security Management Today (SMT) Online

So many contemporary terminologies have sprung up around climate change and the so-called ‘green agenda’ of late – ‘carbon footprint’, ‘renewable energy’, ‘pollution-free’ among them, and all of them a definite step in the right direction. How do they fit within the security space? Brian Sims offers an impassioned opinion.

Until recently, few organisations in the security sector had grasped the nettle and adjusted their working practices to accommodate such ethical philosophies. Why not, you may ask, when everyone else seems to be doing so?

The prime reason is centred on cost. There’s still an all-pervasive view that ‘going green’ means big bucks and much upheaval. Others, though, feel the security sector has a relatively clean carbon footprint in any case and doesn’t really need to do too much.

Arguably, both of these theories are somewhat out of step with reality.

Fears surrounding climate change

There’s a certain degree of fear surrounding climate change, and an equally widespread reality check sinking in that existing natural resources aren’t limitless. Forward-thinking clients using security suppliers’ services are stipulating mandatory minimum requirements in respect of ecological preservation. BS EN ISO 14001, for instance, is now a prerequisite on many tender documents.

It’s also the case that certain organisations benefit from access to a range of external funding streams for so-called ‘green improvements’. Due to a rationing of these schemes, availability is usually on a ‘first past the post’ basis. If truth be told, that isn’t quite the answer.

One enlightened guarding company – Ilford-based AA Security – recently installed photovoltaic panels on the roof of its head office. The total cost was in the region of £12,000. By securing a 50% grant from the Energy Savings Trust and liaising with the local Council’s Environmental Department (who helped convince the parallel Planning Department to waive any costs for permissions) the company was able to proceed.

End result? This project will now provide 85% of AA Security’s annual general electricity consumption, at the same time preserving the environment. Brilliant stuff!

The collective moral conscience

There’s a firmly held belief that security company directors have a duty to reduce the environmental impact made by their organisation as part of a collective moral conscience. It could be argued that this ethical approach is highly desirable, but not a prescriptive requirement.

That may be true but, as Bob Dylan once sang, the times they are-a-changin’. Little by little, we have seen the trickle of significant developments in environmental legislation. Several Borough Councils are issuing penalty notices to residents and businesses deemed not to have recycled their waste in the appropriate manner. Fly-tipping fines are on the up.

Is it a case of taxation by stealth? Maybe. Either way, in my view it would be better if more schemes like this were operational in the security business sector. For instance, if the Government calculated a discount system for business rates against an organisation’s carbon footprint that would encourage enhanced ‘green’ practices. In the security sector, the Regulator – the Security Industry Authority – could look towards placing a stronger emphasis on environmental issues as part of the Approved Contractor Scheme assessment.

The stark reality of the situation is that all security professionals and their client base must play their part in the ecosphere’s preservation.

Environmental legislation and systems

In terms of systems development, over the past few years a number of European environmental directives and regulations have been – or are being – enacted in the UK which will impact/are already impacting on the security sector. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, the Equipment using Product (EuP) Directive, the Battery Directive (which came into force in September) and the Restriction, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemical Substances (REACH) Regulations are now very much in vogue.

In 2006, the Government passed into law the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act, swiftly followed a year later by a White Paper on energy issues. This was published to tackle the issue of clean, secure and affordable energy and that of reducing carbon emissions – otherwise known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC).

A number of elements concerning the CRC will affect the security industry and its clients. In 2010, for example, those who use lots of electricity will have to register and surrender carbon allowances to cover emissions. Under the CRC, clients may also request the carbon footprint of a given security product, which not only involves the amount of carbon it took to produce the system but also the level of carbon produced by the product when in normal use.

If they’re smart, manufacturers will be reviewing this area now as they move to add the relevant markings to their wares.

What we have before us is a marvellous opportunity for the security systems sector to lead others by ensuring that all of its products fully conform to the new legislation, and that solutions providers continually advise clients on the best energy saving measures possible.

In short, the security sector’s practitioners must act with responsibility.

Sustainable approaches to procurement

That said, although sticking a ‘socially responsible’ tag on most security products and services would likely send sales sky-rocketing given the recent rise of the ‘eco-consumer’, many businesses – both suppliers and clients – have yet to be convinced about sustainable approaches to procurement.

The business benefits to be realised include positive impacts on costs, risks to the business, options and preferences. Costs, for example, are reduced by factors ranging from enhanced compliance with Government regulation, lower consumption of energy and other resources through to increased returns generated from capital investments.

Risks are going to be lowered by a strengthened brand, an enhanced reputation, improved community relationships and/or reduced grounds for litigation. The risk of supply discontinuity can also be lowered by applying environmental performance metrics and targets into the supplier performance assessment process or during the contract renewal process, as these help to mitigate the risk of suppliers’ non-compliance.

It’s a known fact that purchased products and services can account for more than 60% of an average company’s costs. When your supply chain’s environmental and social footprint equals or exceeds that of your own company’s, the business’ resulting exposure to supplier activities becomes enormous – as does its vulnerability to adverse environmental and social impacts caused by any suppliers.

In essence, companies have three strategic choices open to them in relation to sustainable procurement.

First, they can adopt a reactive strategy, only moving towards a more sustainable direction when forced to do so by regulation and/or loss of business. Companies that adopt this strategy will maintain a high risk of losing competitive advantage, incurring fines and other penalties and losing either customers or staff (or both).

An alternative strategy is to keep pace with regulation. Such a decision would allow revenue protection, but on the flip side of the coin fails to encourage any new revenue generation.

The third road it’s possible to tread is a strategy of anticipation, through systematic evaluation of the company’s procurement options followed by the implementation of measures designed to maximise the business benefits rendered through procurement.

How big is the sustainability gap?

It’s often the case that senior executives don’t realise how big the sustainability gap really is in their own supply chain until it’s too late. The result is that their business suffers from too much public exposure.

Irrespective of any changes decided and planned, challenges can arise due to internal cultural or organisational barriers to adopting a full life-cycle cost perspective so that the external costs of procurement (disposal costs, carbon dioxide implications and the like) are properly internalised.

In the security sector as in any other business sector, there are effective steps that can be taken towards more sustainable procurement. Put simply, a given organisation needs to identify:

• Stakeholder expectations – among clients, customers, suppliers and regulators

• the level of ambition within the company for this way of doing business

• any barriers that prevent the company from adopting a sustainable procurement strategy

• how the organisation measures up against others that are either leading or lagging behind in the field of sustainable procurement

Proactive companies know that if they have significant procurement spend, they can push the market towards the development of a more sustainable offering. Thus the development of new products and services is pursued in tight collaboration with new or existing suppliers.

While Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders and green activists argue that the Government’s desire for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 doesn’t go far enough it’s a starting point. Interim targets may have been helpful, but they’re not in place. That’s no excuse for the security sector not setting its own goals.

Should security be affected by climate change?

Surely any change to existing processes and procedures will risk the integrity of secure systems? Is it actually possible to be both green and secure at the same time? If so, there would have to be a changeover period. Errors and chinks in the armour could show themselves.

Yes, the security sector should be affected. Yes, it will be (and is being) affected and, in my opinion, we risk our integrity by adopting any kind of silo mentality, and suggesting that we’re beyond looking at green issues.

Today’s discerning client craves greener security suppliers underpinned by a sound Corporate Social Responsibility strategy much like their own. If that forces security providers to make changes then so be it, and so much for the better. Change can be an elixir. We should embrace it whenever and wherever possible.

More efficient use of paper, electricity and fuel, for example, will lead to lower expenditure. This needs to be weighed against the few elements that will be more expensive due to resource availability and increased R&D costs, but careful balancing should see an overall saving (certainly if there’s a top down strategy in place).

What are the core elements of the ‘green mix’?

First, security practitioners must consider the different elements of the business.

For the sake of simplicity, we can split the business into administration and operations. The former category is largely the same for all and includes everything from accounts through to sales, marketing and management.

In terms of operations, each security solutions provider harbours its own skills and specialities (including guarding, CCTV monitoring and IT management).

The administrative elements of security businesses are easy to change as so many other companies in related and disparate industries have been there before and readily shown this to be the case.

Without even touching the operational elements of the business, security leaders can start to make a huge difference by ensuring they recycle everything: paper, plastic, ink toner and, in particular, packaging. These days, almost anything can be recycled through some scheme or another. If a supplier constantly sends items packaged in un-recyclable materials, the threat of boycotting them makes for a swift about-turn.

There are also many elements of operational equipment that can be broken down into their component parts and recycled once they’ve served their purpose. However, why put something beyond use that others may benefit from? Computers, for example, can be passed on to local schools (once all secure data has been wiped from them, of course).

Security companies ought to reduce their use of stationary. There’s been much chatter about shifting towards the paperless office. Invoice clients online, write more e-mails and fewer letters. Ask the bank for online statements. Not difficult, is it?

Transport and the operational side

In terms of transport and travel, one of the biggest green policies instigated by guarding companies has been the change from petrol/diesel vehicles to LPG.

Work is now being won by contractors less on the basis of their demonstrated ability to perform as a security firm and more to do with how they fit in to the client’s green agenda.

On the operational side, companies can make sure CCTV systems, barrier controls and alarm systems employ the latest, low energy technology. Staff can be instructed to switch off monitors and computers when they’re not in use. It’s a little known fact that the standby mode on most appliances uses 90% power.

All of these measures save as much in money as they do on carbon emissions. Now that cannot be bad, can it?

If you would like to read similar www.blogactionday.org posts penned by some of my colleagues at United Business Media on the subject of climate change, please feel free to click on any of the links below:

Anthony Hildebrand: http://thealarmist.wordpress.com

John Welsh: http://johnwelsh.wordpress.com

Ron Alalouff: http://fsefire.wordpress.com

Grahame Morrison: http://blog.kbbnews.co.uk/

SMT Online Editor’s View: Want to prevent ID fraud? Then keep ‘em peeled!

In the wake of the latest CIFAS report, and in honour of National ID Fraud Prevention Week, Brian Sims offers some perspectives on what companies and consumers might do to ensure personal details remain the preserve of their rightful owner.

During my hugely enjoyable secondary school years I used to watch Police Five. You remember… That five-minute slot of (relatively) prime time TV on a Saturday in which bespectacled, officious looking actor-turned-presenter Shaw Taylor would cajole members of the public into helping the police service solve crimes.

The Hackney-born former RAF servant and RADA-trained thespian – whose other claim to fame is that he was the first DJ to interview The Beatles – used all manner of devices to do so, including silhouetted figures (complete with fulsome descriptions of same courtesy of police officers who knew not which way to turn) and still images of crime scenes.

To round it all off, there was that classic catchphrase “Keep ’em peeled” (accompanied by a knowing index finger jabbed close to both eyes before pointing screenward). Sublime. Absolutely sublime. You didn’t mess with Shaw Taylor, that’s for shaw [sic].

While fronting Police Five, Shaw – who, at the veteran age of 84, now has his own blog, would you believe – still found the time to present other programmes (among them a motoring magazine entitled Drive-In and the profoundly middle class enticement to Try Bridge with Shaw Taylor).

The latter eventually resulted in him being invited to partner Omar Sharif in an international Bridge contest… Taylor politely declined, perhaps not wishing to find himself on the sharp end of a scimitar if he ever dared to beat The Great Man in front of a live audience.

Laying the foundations for CrimeWatch

Anyway, Police Five famously ran from 1962 right through until 1992 and, to all intents and purposes, laid the very foundations upon which CrimeWatch (latterly with Nick Ross), Police Camera Action, Street Crime UK, Traffic Cops et al that we see on screen today were built.

Make no mistake. The premise of this ATV programme that later transferred to its successor London Weekend Television (at least in part so that Shaw could be filmed next to the gargantuan revolving Rubik’s Cube outside New Scotland Yard for maximum effect) was nothing less than a sensational idea in the 1960s. This weekend slot on The Magic Rectangle was indeed London-centric and not networked, although ATV did run a separate Midlands edition on weekdays.

As a young lad mad keen on football (a passion that I’ll never lose), I can’t say that I ever watched Police Five for any other reason than that it was a necessary ‘stepping stone’ – not to say hurdle – towards my evening meal with the folks, some kind of ‘light entertainment’ (God forbid it be Seaside Special, though… that was car crash TV) and then the fulcrum of my Saturday night: Match of the Day (at the time fronted by The Chinned Fulham Wonder that is Jimmy Hill).

Today, it’s a different story. Literally. I watch pretty much all of the fly-on-the-wall police and security-related programmes, among them Nightwatch (ably hosted by ITV News presenter Steve Scott with his impossibly white gnashers, and usually broadcast into the small hours).

Well, I make no apologies for that fact that I never really switch off from being a security professional. Once the crime-fighting and security bug has gripped you it’s there for life, isn’t it?

Anything to declare, Sir?

So it was no surprise when, on Monday this week, I happened across the televisual feast on the Living channel that is Nothing To Declare. Another fly-on-the-wall documentary, this time assiduously following the men and women who determinedly defend Australia’s borders from drug runners, smugglers, terrorists and all other forms of n’er-do-wells.

Fascinating it was, too. One holidaymaker arriving in the country from America was most aggrieved when the authorities had the brazen affrontery to ask to search his bags after he’d declared an intent for a significantly long stay, and yet had little funds about his person (or in his bank account) with which to pay for it.

The bloke said he’d never go back to Australia again, and that the whole experience had left “a sour taste” in his mouth (although judging from his accent I don’t think he was a member of the ECB looking forward to another 5-0 drubbing in The Ashes).

Presumably, this guy would rather the Aussie customs officers just let any miscreant in to rob, rape, steal and pillage, and perhaps blow half the continent to Kingdom Come at some point for good measure?

This kind of attitude beggars belief, it really does, and yet we see it manifested on Airline and other airport-related programmes all the time by people who are nothing but ignorant in the extreme.

While the polite and efficient officials and police stationed at Border Control were checking this bloke’s passport, I thought back to an article I’d written that very morning on SMT Online heralding the start of National ID Fraud Prevention Week (which runs until this Friday).

Do you know that, in the first nine months of this year, there have been 59,000 recorded victims of impersonation? To put this into perspective, that little sum isn’t far off equalling the total for the whole of last year (recorded at 62,658). Putting it mildly, that’s pretty scary.

In short, this means that – according to fraud prevention service CIFAS latest study – the curse of ID fraud has increased by more than one third in 2009 in comparison with the same period last year. It also means that the UK is currently experiencing the highest numbers of ID fraud throughout Europe.

Online purchasing and customer carelessness

Account takeovers – whereupon a third party hacks into an existing bank account rather than creating a new and legitimate one – have more than tripled in the last two years alone. Over half of all account takeover victims, meanwhile, discovered that they’d had their credit cards targeted, with both online purchasing and customer carelessness being blamed for the increase.

From what I can gather, customer carelessness with personal details is a fair accusation to level (I’ll touch on this in due course), but what about the responsibility for online purchasing? Is that really the fault of the consumer?

In today’s world we’re pretty much forced to buy certain goods – concert and airline tickets and, to some extent, music and household goods, etc – online. That’s not the fault of the consumer (and particularly not so if the vendor’s systems are insecure and thus open to widespread abuse by Johnny Hacker down Templeton Road).

Surprise, surprise. On first inspection, the CIFAS report duly reveals that many companies responsible for handling sensitive customer data do not always pay due care and attention to what they’re doing, with a third of employees questioned admitting to throwing risky information in the bin rather than shredding it (and shredding it securely by procuring the services of a recognised, bona fide document destruction company such as those belonging to the BSIA’s excellent Information Destruction Section).

Interestingly, the report – appropriately entitled The Anonymous Attacker – reveals ID crime ‘hot spots’ across London and the rest of the UK. Apparently, the area harbouring the most victims of ID theft in the Capital is Barnet, with south east London blighted to the tune of 2,680 incidents so far this year.

High numbers were also reported in Birmingham (where, so far this year, there have been 2,111 cases of ID fraud). Barnet (again) ‘enjoys’ the highest number of account takeovers, being equal in ‘status’ to occurrence levels across the London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Lambeth and Croydon.

Nationwide, Wales has the least number of reported ID fraud cases and south east England the highest. No great surprise there, although coming in the wake of what the morally bereft bankers and politicians have done in recent times you’d be forgiven for thinking there were no funds left to steal.

“Fraud is an insidious crime,” comments CIFAS chief executive Peter Hurst. Indeed so, and none more so than when it’s seemingly perpetrated by those who purport to govern the nation.

I feel strongly that the whole expenses scandal really is the straw that has finally broken the camel’s back as far as the UK’s voting public is concerned, as I’m sure will be proven at the General Election next summer when Joe Public stays at home rather than making the trek to the Polling Station to pledge allegiance.

Taking steps towards protection

Commenting in the CIFAS report, Hurst continues: “Not only does ID fraud affect consumers and businesses from a financial perspective, but also its impact in terms of reputation, trust and time are unquantifiable. Fraud prevention is a shared responsibility, and must become a shared duty across both private and public sectors.” That last point is so true.

However, although most people know about ID fraud, the CIFAS research alone shows that consumers and businesses are neither aware of – nor taking – the steps they could (and should) be to fully protect themselves.

National Identity Fraud Prevention Week is a nationwide effort to help in the battle against this type of fraud. The dedicated website offers a range of resources to help you and/or your business avoid the costly and debilitating effects of such criminality. You can even sign up to receive tips and updates on the best ways to protect yourself.

It’s easy, so do it now (but not until you’ve finished reading what I have to say on the matter!)

Corporate identity fraud is said to occur ‘when a false corporate identity or another company’s identity details are used to support unlawful activity’. In the real world, this can entail anything from stealing a corporate logo to setting up a false website.

At its extreme, corporate ID fraud might involve theft on a massive scale, such as selling property or even assuming the identity of a major corporation.

In such cases, of course, there could well be substantial damage inflicted, not just to partners who deal with the company, but to the company’s most valuable asset – its brand/reputation. As Companies House duly notes, you’ll only need to lose your company once.

SMT Online readers can learn more about how corporate organisations are tackling fraudsters, and remain up-to-date on news related to corporate identity fraud, by visiting the superb Hot Topics blog.

Safeguarding the individual from ID fraud

Personal ID fraud is said to have occurred when an individual’s personal information is appropriated in a fraudulent manner and subsequently used by someone else without their knowledge to obtain credit, goods or other services. It can even extend to securing a passport in their name.

To date, in the UK alone there have been 4.3 million victims of ID fraud. As such, it’s important that all of us understand – and make a point of finding out – exactly how fraudsters can lay their hands on our private information. By doing so, we can take the necessary steps to protect ourselves, our families and work colleagues.

A quick assessment of how much we are at risk of ID fraud may be determined by taking an online risk assessment test.

According to the National ID Fraud Prevention Week website, education and awareness is the first important step. “It’s critical that companies have a clear policy in place, and can easily explain to staff the ways in which they can contribute to protecting their identities and that of the company,” states the site.

The steps you might like to take in your company are many and varied.

First of all, if you haven’t done so then register with Companies House immediately, and make sure you sign up to its PROOF and Monitor services (which will help to prevent fraudsters changing the names of directors and effectively ‘hijacking’ the company).

Always make sure that you and your members of staff properly destroy unwanted information. Use a cross-cut or microshred shredder (more of which anon), and don’t forget to shred CDs and DVDs.

Ensure that all employees are fully informed about the myriad risks posed by ID fraud criminality. Create a clear set of guidelines and procedures for staff (perhaps as part of an ongoing programme initiated by the Human Resources Department) concerning the handling, storage and sharing of sensitive information, both online and offline.

Wipe clean information on old computers before disposing of them, and always check the identity of customers. Both business and consumer credit reference agencies offer a wide range of solutions to authenticate and verify that given customers are indeed who they claim to be.

Check references, qualifications and past employment records with total thoroughness. A rapid-fire CV check may not be enough, and the same goes for any partners and vendors with whom you enter into contracts before you sign on the dotted line. Crucially, make it known that you will not blame people if they approach you with concerns.

Dial-in to Companies House on a regular basis

Check your Companies House registration regularly and, if it changes, you need to take steps as soon as is practicably possible. Encourage a ‘clear desk’ policy, and remember that being professional with your corporate identity is as important as being professional in every other aspect of your work.

Network administrators must change their master passwords while the ‘ordinary’ workers are changing theirs. Research often shows that while the the latter change their passwords quite assiduously, those in charge of the whole shooting match often don’t bother. That’s not good enough.

Keep all sensitive information as secure as you can – don’t put ANY of it (such as the aforementioned directors’ signatures) online.

It’s also a good idea to protect and secure all post (assuming, of course, that members of the Communication Workers Union ‘toiling’ for their master Royal Mail can actually be bothered to deliver it in the first place). Fraudsters may attempt to redirect your company mail or that of a vendor or partner, so be on the look-out all of the time.

If he or she is doing their job properly, the IT manager in your organisation ought to be protecting you from any online threats, but be sensible if your company does allow you to use social media ‘engines’ such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc (incidentally, you can follow the progress of National ID Fraud Prevention Week and the ongoing fight against fraud on Twitter).

Make a point of asking about your company’s policy on the matter. What I would say is that the website Getsafeonline.org offers some excellent advice on keeping your details private on social networks.

Constant vigilance is the key

By all means be vigilant at all times. Beware of anybody who contacts you unexpectedly and asks for personal information or account details (even if they claim to be from your bank, the police service or another official organisation such as your local Borough Council).

Ask for the individual’s name and a contact number, and then check with the central organisation in question before calling back.

Only this week I was sent a very dodgy-looking e-mail purporting to be from United Business Medias central IT Department. It waxed not so lyrical about a server upgrade, and directed me towards a web link from which I could download security patches.

My suspicions were immediately aroused when I noted the grammar within said communication was none-too-clever. Maybe it was sent by one of the many thousands of school pupils who miraculously gained five A grades in their A Levels this summer while barely being able to spell their own name?

Anyway, I passed on said missive to a member of the IT team and, as I suspected, it hadn’t been sent by them. The point is that vigilance really is the key. If something looks odd then it probably is odd.

Guard your debit and credit cards with your life (just like I do!). Minimise the information and the number of cards you carry in your wallet. If you should happen to lose a card, contact the fraud division of the relevant credit card company immediately. Don’t wait until you get home or whatever.

Similarly, if you apply for a new credit card and it doesn’t arrive within either a reasonable timeframe or that specified by the bank, contact the issuer.

On that note, it always amazes me how the banks send out a new debit or credit card. They stick them in a standard envelope, making it obvious what’s inside. Anyone could steal it (there are plenty of reported cases of unscrupulous postmen doing so), and the PIN along with it.

The envelopes don’t even have to be signed for by the intended recipient. Surely the banks can do better than that?

Watch out for the card skimmers

Sticking with the debit and credit card theme for a moment, always keep your eye on waitresses and waitors in restaurants and sales assistants in shops when you give them your card for a purchase, and make sure you can see your credit card at all times.

It’s a known fact that restaurants and petrol stations are notorious venues for card skimming, although that problem has been eased a little thanks to the introduction (and portability) of Chip and PIN machines.

As is the case for businesses, it’s important for all individuals to shred sensitve documents. It’s the best way to ensure that criminals (and over-zealous Council mandarins) cannot build up a profile of you based on the information you stick in the bin.

As I said earlier, invest in a powerful cross-cut shredder (it was the first thing Annora and I bought when we moved into our new house last year). They’re brilliant, and afford you peace of mind by cutting paper into small, confetti-like pieces.

You might think that unwanted ‘spam’ mail containing money off vouchers, etc from Homebase or wherever isn’t important, but the fact that the header letter contains your address details makes it so.

It’s also a good idea to check your credit report regularly through an organisation like Experian to ensure no accounts or false credit arrangement has been illegally set up in your name.

Thereafter, regular monitoring of your credit report will swiftly alert you if someone has been using your identity to obtain credit, ensuring you can not only rectify your credit report as soon as possible but also stop the fraudster in their tracks (and, hopefully, see them prosecuted).

Keep your personal documents safe at all times. Store your passport, driving license, bank statements or utility bills in a safe place (preferably a metal, fire-proof, lockable file holder). On the same theme, limit the number of documents you carry around with you that contain your personal details.

Under no circumstances should you have personal documents in your car when you’re not in it. That’s just asking for trouble, and particularly so if you inadvertently leave them on display.

Going on holiday or the Internet

If you’re planning on being away from home either for a holiday or an extended period due to work commitments overseas, contact Royal Mail about its Keepsafe service. This holds all of your mail for up to two months, with immediate delivery (in theory, anyway) upon your return.

If you use the Internet at home – and most of us do these days – then for goodness sake make sure you have the latest security patches and up-to-date anti-virus software installed.

As I said, social networking has become enormously popular over the last few years, pretty much to the extent that anyone with a digital camera and a keyboard thinks they’re (respectively) David Bailey or Dan Brown. They’re not, but that’s another story.

In truth, you can easily avoid the risks and enjoy social networking sites by following a few sensible guidelines.

Don’t let peer pressure – or what other people are doing on these sites – force you into doing something you’re not in any way comfortable with. Just because other people post their mobile phone number or details of their birthday on the Internet doesn’t mean you have to do the same. They’re the stupid ones.

Most important of all, be wary of publishing any identifying information about yourself. In particular things like pictures of your home or workplace, your address details or even your full name.

I’m astonished by the idiots who think it’s clever to upload photographs while on holiday in some far flung corner of the globe. That pretty much invites thieves to target their nice little abode in suburbia. Then those same Flickr addicts wonder why, when they return to Blighty, their home has been ransacked and all of their valuables have somehow vanished into thin air.

It’s also a good idea to establish a separate e-mail account that doesn’t employ your real name. Use this to register and receive e-mail from your social media networking site. That way, if you want to shut down your connection, you merely cease using that mailing account. This is very simple and quick to do by way of e-mail providers like Hotmail or Yahoo!

What goes online stays online

Remember too that, although the web may seem like a transient medium, it isn’t. As is the case with print, what goes online generally stays online (the initial cached item will at any rate).

Don’t say anything or publish pictures that might cause you embarrassment at a later stage. As a general rule, if you wouldn’t say it to your boss or your grandmother, don’t ‘voice’ certain sentiments online.

Posting pictures of yourself cavorting naked on a beach in Spain probably isn’t a good idea, and neither is loading images of a bloated and drunken night out in town. People have lost their job, career and/or all self-respect over this type of pseudo ‘journalism’, so be warned.

Back on core topic, I’d thoroughly recommend that you download the new CIFAS document. It’s well worth a read, and could save you or your business so much grief.

Until next time…