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…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Securing better regulation

According to the Better Regulation Executive’s latest report, the Security Industry Authority “is prioritising its use of better regulation principles, and has made real progress on improving its performance”. Is that so? Brian Sims looks far beyond the Executive Summary.

Amid little fanfare, a Government document courtesy of the Better Regulation Executive and the National Audit Office – and enticingly entitled ‘The Security Industry Authority: A Hampton Implementation Review Report’ – was published on 22 September.

Before delving into its myriad findings, permit me to set the scene a little.

Sir Philip Hamptons seminal report – ‘Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement’ – saw the light of day back in 2005. From that point in time, it became one of the present Government’s cornerstones of the much-championed better regulation agenda.

The basic principles of effective inspection and enforcement set out in that tome – which, necessarily and correctly, places risk assessment at the very heart of regulatory activity – are designed to encourage a modern regulatory system which “properly balances protection and prosperity”.

In line with Hampton’s musings, the Government has – and not unreasonably – established an expectation that all regulators will embed these principles in their approach to regulation.

Developing an external review procedure

To check whether or not these expectations are being met, back in 2006 the Chancellor (at the time none other than Gordon Brown) invited the Better Regulation Executive (currently presided over by chief executive Philip Rycroft, and which sits inside the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and the National Audit Office to develop an external review process suitable for assessing how much progress various regulators are making in terms of implementing Hampton’s principles.

‘Hampton Implementation Reports’ covering the work of five major regulators (31 will eventually come under the microscope) were duly published in March last year. The review process is ongoing and, interestingly for all of us in the security sector, the ‘inspectors’ have now focused their attentions on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority – a previous employer of Mike Wilson, of course – and the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

This latest review of the SIA’s work to date was conducted in January, during Bernard Herdans highly successful tenure as interim chief executive following Wilson’s swift departure. Strange that it took eight months to write up the subsequent report that’s a mere 44 pages in duration, but I digress.

Members of the review team were drawn from the Better Regulation Executive, from wider Government, the Charity Commission and the Trading Standards Institute (among others).

Apparently, the reviewers “talked to a wide range of Stakeholders, to staff at all levels within the SIA’s organisation, conducted visits to business sites and analysed data and papers”. The report before me “reflects the judgement of the review team on the basis of the evidence put before it”.

During their deliberations, members of that team – namely Rosie Chapman (from the Charity Commission), Mark Halliday (of the National Audit Office), Paul Ramsden (Trading Standards Institute) and Rena Lalgie (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) – were also bearing in mind Professor Richard Macrorys 2006 review of penalties for failure to comply with regulatory obligations. In ‘Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective’, Macrory suggested that regulators ought to focus on outcomes rather than action.

If you recall, he also recommended that sanctions should be aimed at changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses and eliminating any financial gain to be had from non-compliance.

Top line findings of the BRE report

What, then, were the major findings? Specifically, they are that:

• the SIA does indeed place a high priority on implementing the Hampton and Macrory principles

• the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) has helped in raising standards in the industry, while at the same time avoiding some of the possible associated burdens

• there are a number of additional benefits arising from work with the ACS, including the “better exchange of Best Practice within the industry”

• “good evidence” has been found to suggest that some of the issues around licensing services which have affected the regulator in the early stages of its work are now being resolved

• while Stakeholders believe that communications between the SIA and the industry had been “problematic”, the consensus view is that this situation is now improving – the SIA “is beginning to engage constructively and proactively with business”

• there’s a strong perception among Stakeholders that, while criminality in the sector has not been eliminated, it has been reduced directly as a result of the SIA’s efforts

Let’s look at some of these points and assess just how much water they hold.

Both the Hampton and Macrory reports are concerned with effective regulation. In short, achieving regulatory outcomes that minimise the burdens imposed on business. Absolutely key to all this is the idea that regulators ought to be risk-based and proportionate in their decision-making, and at the same time transparent and accountable for their actions.

Unlike so many of the regulators covered by Sir Philip Hampton’s original report, the SIA boasts a clear framework within which compliant businesses can attain what’s euphemistically termed ‘earned autonomy’.

On this point, the review team found that risk is “effectively used in the operational aspects of the Authority’s work: additional data requests and inspections are used only in cases of known or suspected non-compliance, while key risk factors – including intelligence which suggests probable links to organised crime – are taken into account when planning the work of the inspection and compliance teams.”

The SIA, of course, has a Strategic Assessment document in place listing the risks confronting the Authority, and accounting for their likely impact on regulatory outcomes. Interestingly, though, the Better Regulation Executive report comments: “The SIA’s compliance and enforcement operations are intelligence-led, but we found that intelligence was not put to such good use at a higher level of decision-making – where the links between intelligence, risk and strategic planning were less in evidence.”

Is that not a little worrying? I would say that it most certainly is. We live and work in an age where the phrase ‘joined-up thinking’ is now everyday parlance. One would expect the regulator to exhibit such traits at all times and at all levels.

Comparable but not identical objectives

It’s fair to say that much of the SIA’s work is conducted at arm’s length. For example, it contracts out its licensing and related functions such as the Call Centre (at present to Liverpool Direct Limited), independent assessing bodies are used to verify conformance with the ACS and so on. Its partners have comparable but not necessarily identical objectives.

I would strongly agree with the review team’s assessment that, in these circumstances, the regulator must provide support where its partners are better placed to act, and focus its attentions fully and squarely on gaps in the system which would otherwise be neglected.

Intelligence is most certainly a key part of determining levels of risk. Naturally, the SIA has a number of key partners. When it comes to enforcement action, the police and local authority inspectors are the most notable among them. The police services surveyed feel that intelligence sharing has taken place effectively and at an appropriate level. Local authority representatives were not so gushing.

I must say that last point has never come across in the enforcement-related SIA statements we receive at SMT Online and info4security…

Speaking of those press statements… The review team considered the balance of the SIA’s enforcement work across the security industry. There was a feeling that more clarity could be built-in to the way in which the regulator’s work as a whole is prioritised according to the risks facing the licensing system.

Over the past six months and more, the regulator has extensively publicised its work in city centres and, more specifically, within the night-time economy. These commendable efforts are routinely described to raise the profile of this work with partners and, in part, to encourage others towards compliance.

That’s fine, but there are inherent dangers with such an approach. From my point of view, I think there are too many statements being issued, and too many of them saying virtually the same thing. If the regulator isn’t careful, people will just become blasé towards what’s being done and turn a blind eye. You can only read the same words so many times before the shutters come down.

As I’ve said before in a previous SMT Online Editors View, it’s time we had some more flesh on the bones. Why was a certain area targeted? What are the specific problems and/or issues in that town or city? What did the inspectors actually do on the visit? Where are the quotes from those inspected and found wanting?

It’s simply no longer enough just to tell us that Town A was visited, this is what was discovered and here’s a bland sentence or three from the SIA head of inspection.

According to the Better Regulation Executive report, the review team members found that, unprompted, many of the businesses questioned last winter suggested that some of the work involved was “a waste of enforcement resource”. I would again agree with that team when it suggests the SIA needs to communicate its basic enforcement strategy more clearly if full confidence among partner organisations is to be ensured.

More needs to be said by the regulator about the way in which the sanctions available to it – including intermediate and informal steps that fall just shy of prosecution – will be used. Also, more needs to be said about the factors the SIA will take into account when it chooses to conduct enforcement action.

Transparency and accountability

It’s well documented that the regulator has experienced difficulties in engaging with certain elements of the industry in its first few years ‘in office’.

In terms of the clients and buyers, it was worrying to discover last May at the SIAs Annual Stakeholder Conference in Manchester that Dan Hooton – group head of security at the Prudential – had not received a single Corporate Update, nor any words of wisdom from 90 High Holborn in the last three years or so.

Perhaps he’s not alone, and there is culpability on the SIA’s part here if that’s the case. However, it’s not the job of the regulator to spoon-feed information every minute of the working day and week. There has to be some expectation that dialogue and interest is a two-way process. Unless they’ve been stuck in a bunker in Outer Mongolia for some considerable length of time due to an unfortunate set of unforeseen circumstances, clients ought to be making the effort themselves to engage with the SIA. Like I said, it’s a two-way street.

The good news is that the Stakeholder Network Meetings are really starting to take off. I’m speaking at two of them in the near future, one concentrating on the SIA’s Small Business Network (which takes place in central London on 9 October) and the other in Nottingham on 17 November, this time focusing on the Door Supervision Network and the aforementioned night-time economy. The agenda for both gatherings is really first class, and all about audience engagement. These free-standing networks are demonstrably good news.

One of the most prominent points put to the reviewers by Stakeholders was that they felt dissatisfied with the feedback received in relation to information they’d submitted about suspected cases of non-compliance (there’s a rich irony in there somewhere, given what has happened on the in-house issue). In some cases, ‘whistleblowers’ are no longer prepared to summon breath and tell all about further miscreants due to this lack of feedback.

The SIA simply must address why certain members of its customer base are dissatisfied with the current approach. More must be done to make the exchange of information and comment satisfactory to all.

The Approved Contractor Scheme: what’s the deal?

It’s fair to say that the ACS is very much at the core of the SIA’s work aimed at promoting higher standards in the industry.

Accreditation decisions are made by the regulator, but detailed assessments of companies are conducted at arm’s length by assessing bodies including the National Security Inspectorate. At the time of the review, the number of registered companies was 537. We’re now up to 630-odd. In my opinion that’s far too many.

As stated at the outset, the Better Regulation Executive report suggests that the ACS has assisted in raising service standards across the industry. However, many of the business leaders questioned state that the regulator could be doing more to promote higher and better standards.

Options suggested by Stakeholders were that access to the ACS could be set at a higher level, perhaps a graduated approach might be adopted (with access to higher levels of accreditation for those companies with higher standards) or that the numerical scores currently part of the assessment process could be used more openly as a means of differentiation.

The SIA recently published the results of its differentiation study in relation to the ACS, so now we all know the options being considered.

Something has always nagged at me about the assessment scores option. It’s bad enough that guarding companies have to prostitute themselves and everything they do to straight-laced procurement managers who know very little about the discipline of security. If they’re forced into flaunting their assessment scores as well then I cannot help but feel that’s a pretty hefty stick with which the client can beat them severely at the tender meeting (even if they are in the same quartile as their competitors).

Weren’t we trying to create a select club?

The SIA target of 700 Approved Contractors on the books by next March looks like it will be achieved well ahead of time, but is that a good thing? How is this now any kind of select club when so many companies have apparently passed the test?

It’s not good enough for the regulator to say that, when the counter registers another company, that’s another security contractor that’s met the grade.

The bar to entry had to be set at a low enough level, but it’s looking increasingly likely that the level is too low (“insufficiently challenging” is the phrase used in the Better Regulation Executive missive).

Once implemented, will the decision taken on the differentiation studies actually make a difference at some point? I certainly hope so, because many practitioners in the industry are wanting to know when those elements promised – including preference at tender stage and the guarantee of work over and above non-registered companies – are going to come to fruition in return for the (pretty hefty) fee.

Of course, those two areas I’ve mentioned are more the preserve of the client than the regulator. If the client isn’t enlightened then standards will not be raised, but then why should clients in the private sector fall into line with their cousins in the public space when local authorities don’t have to specify ACS-registered companies in their own tender documents?

Forget all the Home Office waffle about not wanting – nor being allowed to – create a ‘monopolistic’ playing field. The Government must practise what it preaches here, particularly so when you consider that local authorities have the biggest budgets and the largest security procurement requirement year-on-year.

The Better Regulation Executive report tells us more than once that the SIA isn’t quite the same as most regulators. That being so, Councils dealing directly with both the regulator and its myriad Approved Contractors ought to be granted some political licence when it comes to security tendering.

The ACS from the Hampton perspective

From a Hampton point of view, there are (apparently) risks involved in making ACS standards any higher. This “might impose additional burdens”. Most notably for Gordon Brown, one suspects. If there were to be a lower number of Approved Contractors there’d be less in the way of fees to help prop up an already cash-bereft Treasury.

The review team believes that “an alternative approach might be to work with the industry on promoting higher independent standards if this suits their needs”. I hear on the grapevine that wheels may already be in motion there. Watch this space…

Many Stakeholders questioned were at pains to emphasise the SIA’s work has been important given the perceived failings of self-regulation by the industry prior to regulation being enforced.

Now, though, we are at a stage where we must ask the questions: ‘Have standards been raised’? and: ‘Is the industry changing for the better?’ The answer to both is: ‘Yes… but only to an extent’. There’s a base on which to build, but we need to be aiming much, much higher than is the case at present.

If the industry is honest with itself, contracts are still being won in unseemly price wars that decimate margins. Some officers are still on National Minimum Wage. Training is still being slashed where budgets don’t allow for it. Unbelievably, there are clients out there who know little or nothing about regulation, what it stands for and why it’s so important. Not good enough.

The Better Regulation Executive report talks of “scepticism” surrounding “the value of the training aspects of the licensing regime”. The SIA licence demonstrates that a person has been vetted and checked, achieved base level qualifications and has attained a degree of knowledge. It suggests nothing about actual competency in the security role. Plainly, this fact is not clearly understood by far too many security solutions buyers.

To its credit, the regulator is developing a more modular approach to the licence-relevant training which must be undertaken, but this work has to be underpinned by dialogue with the industry and buyers such that it can formalise the difference between the basic licensing standard and the additional demands of other external standards.

The Better Regulation Executive report states: “We found that there is still no clear consensus as to the way in which responsibilities should be shared between the industry, the SIA and other bodies such as Skills for Security.”

Integrity and effectiveness of the regulatory system

According to the review team: “Confidence within the security industry in the integrity and effectiveness of the regulatory system remains a salient issue”. Indeed it does.

There’s no doubt the SIA has conducted some very important work in trying to establish its credibility. There have been high profile Court cases involving some larger security companies. Companies that the SIA felt had seemingly shown a deliberate disregard for the regulatory laws.

However, there are still areas of concern. For example, there’s a widespread belief that training fraud is rife. Whether that’s true or not is open to debate, but the evidence provided by Panorama alone was quite compelling. The case shown in that episode cannot be an isolated incidence. This is undoubtedly “a hurdle to complete confidence” in the SIA’s work.

Again, I would say it’s largely down to the training community itself to weed out and ‘whistleblow’ on those companies who are less than discerning in how they conduct their business.

The full implementation of Sir Philip Hampton’s recommendations is a journey that could well take several years. The SIA is making marked progress. The regulatory agenda is being moved forward, but there are fundamental areas for improvement that cannot be ignored.

How the SIA conducts itself and its regulatory duties matters. It’s also the case that clients need to be told the facts of life when it comes to procurement while, irrespective of the economic backdrop, guarding companies have to walk away – and be seen to walk away – from any potential contract where those realities are not part of the equation.

Plenty of notables have suggested to me that regulation is the ‘Last Chance Saloon’ for the guarding industry, not to mention the wider security sector. They believe that if the Government’s programme of legislation and enforcement disseminated via the SIA doesn’t work then all of us might as well pack our bags, turn the lights off and close the door.

Speaking as someone who has done nothing but demand – and attempt to facilitate – the highest possible standards of probity and contract execution in this sector for the past decade, I must admit there have been times when my skull has been throbbing thanks to vigorous contact with that brick wall.

However, there’s an old saying that suggests: ‘Fortune favours the brave’. Let it be known that I intend to be brave for as long as it takes to change the status quo for the betterment of all.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: Security and The City

Last night, the Master and Wardens of The Worshipful Company of Security Professionals hosted the organisation’s inaugural Annual Security Lecture. Brian Sims comments on the main points of a superb speech delivered by The Right Honourable Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones.

Not surprisingly, the City of London has always relied upon good security to protect its people, property and world-renowned reputation. Even more so, perhaps, in a post-9/11 and 7/7 landscape that has borne an economic collapse the like of which many of us have never experienced in our entire lifetime.

Ten years ago, the security sector was bereft of any Livery-based lineage and, in the City at least, there was a burgeoning desire to create (and then nurture) a culture that would secure – on an ongoing basis – the basic principles which protect people, property and liberty.

On 26 August 1999, The Guild of Security Professionals was registered with the Chamberlain of the City of London and, on 18 November that same year, an inaugural meeting was held to plan the establishment of a dedicated Guild.

Come the end of 2000, membership had increased to 90. The Windsor Herald designed a special Coat of Arms and The Queen’s Chaplain at The Tower of London was appointed Honorary Chaplain to the Guild.

Then, on 6 January 2004, the Guild became a recognised Company of the City of London without Grant of Livery by order of the Court of Aldermen of the City. The Court was petitioned in January 2008 and, just over one month later, the Court of Aldermen declared The Worshipful Company of Security Professionals to be the 108th Livery Company of the City of London.

The Royal Charter and Hear4U

Today, the Company boasts an impressive 343 members (with 163 Liverymen in the ranks), but there’s no resting on laurels. The organisation has already petitioned the Privy Council for a Royal Charter, while its Hear4U Benevolent Fund – devised and run in association with, and supported by, Security Management Today Online – continues to help members of the security profession who’ve fallen on hard times back to work as quickly as possible.

To its great credit, The Worshipful Company has now begun what it hopes will be an annual fixture in the discerning security professional’s calendar – a security lecture. Something along the lines of The Dimbleby Lectures that ran when black and white television was the next best thing to sliced bread.

The inaugural event was staged last night at 9 Little Trinity Lane, London EC4V 2AD – the location of The Painters’ Hall, itself just a stone’s throw from Mansion House London Underground station.

I was there for two reasons. One, because I’d received a personal invitation from Past Master Peter French, the other because the guest speaker was Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones DCMG, the shadow security minister.

Given the lame excuses we’ve had from the current administration in relation to the lack of spend on the military, what’s being done to combat the insidious creep of cyber crime and the never-ending threat of terrorism, I was more than a little interested to hear what this working peer would have to say on such matters. Particularly so with a General Election just around the corner.

Much of what was said by the Baroness resonated with me to such an extent that I wanted to share it with you. While you’re reading what follows, bear in mind that this is not about party politics. Rather, it’s about coming to terms with reality, being honest with ourselves and doing something to make this world a safe and secure environment for the generations that follow.

Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones: the CV

First of all, by way of setting the scene permit me to relate a little detail about the Baroness.

Pauline Neville-Jones was educated at Leeds Girls’ High School and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford (where she studied modern history). From 1963 through to 1996, Neville-Jones was a career member of the UK Diplomatic Service, during which time she served in British Missions in Rhodesia, Singapore, Washington DC and Bonn.

Between 1977 and 1982, Neville-Jones served as head of the defence and overseas secretariat in the Cabinet Office (more of which anon), and as deputy secretary to the Cabinet. 1993-1994 saw a 12-month spell as chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

From 1994 until her ‘retirement’, Neville-Jones took on the role of political director at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (in which capacity she ably led the British delegation to the Dayton negotiations on the Bosnia peace settlement).

An appointment as a BBC governor followed in January 1998. From 2002 through to 2005, Neville-Jones was non-executive chairman of QinetiQ, the (then) part-owned UK/US defence company. January 2006 saw her appointment as chairman of the Conservative Party’s policy group on national security.

Today, Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof in the County of Cumbria sits on the Conservative front bench as shadow security minister and is the national security advisor to David Cameron, the Tory leader and (potentially) the next Prime Minister.

An impressive CV, then, but would there be a delivery to match? So many politicians let us down after such a big build-up, whether that be on television or on The Hustings, but Baroness Neville-Jones is not of that ilk. Her speech was quite brilliant, hitting not just one but a whole box of nails slap-bang square on the head.

Protecting people, property and liberty

A few pleasant words about The Worshipful Company passed by her lips – there was mention of support for innovative products and solutions that “protect people, property and liberty” etc – before the Baroness waded into the Government over its woeful neglect of our Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

“Security and national defence does not come cheap,” said the Baroness. “There’s a growing recognition and alarm about the huge hole that currently exists in our defence budget. This doesn’t square with the military’s growing procurement list, and the increasing cost of the equipment it needs to purchase.”

So what would the Tories do to square that particular circle? “We will have to do things differently, and would want to do things differently,” expressed Neville-Jones.

“For a start, I want to see security manufacturing remain in this country. We need to retain our excellent engineering and design capabilities. It’s fair to say that we may have to get used to having 80% of our desired capacity in place at any one time. In a nutshell, we need different, faster and better procurement.”

The State and total security

“The State can never hope to provide total security,” explained the Baroness, clad from head to toe in black hues as if in mourning for the Brown administration. “If it ever tried to do so it would alter society in a fundamental manner, and not for the best. It’s fair to say that security cannot always be a top-down exercise. The difficulty all of us face all of the time is how to make people want to engage with the security sector in a meaningful way.”

Turning specifically towards the City of London for a moment, the Baroness explained that much has been done to strengthen this region of the Capital. Necessarily so. It’s a region of massive strategic importance (as demonstrated on a regular basis by the excellent City Security publication).

“London is a global hub with an iconic status,” opined the Baroness, “and we must be careful not to divorce the City from the rest of the Capital. We need London to be seen as a coherent whole, particularly when it comes to security provision.”

As we all know, during an economic crisis like the one we find ourselves embroiled within at present, political extremism has a tendency to come to the fore. “The prime threat at the moment emanates from Islamist extremism,” added the Baroness. “A successful attack could damage confidence in the City still further.”

One wonders where we would be if such a scenario were ever played out, and yet there’s still plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that guarding companies are picking up work at ludicrous rates right in the heart of The Square Mile.

Downgrading the threat level

Of course, back in July the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre changed the UK’s threat level from severe to substantial. Almost in parallel, the Government’s long-awaited counter-terrorism strategy update – in the shape of CONTEST2 – duly appeared.

“I’m not sure that much progress has been made with the Prevent element of that strategy,” said the Baroness. “There has been a considerable focus on security for crowded places but, no matter the scenario, one truism is always there – we must never become complacent nor over-confident in any way.”

That’s a very salient point indeed, even more so for City firms who are under threat from all sorts of groups, from the Animal Rights movement through to anti-Capitalists and the aforementioned extremists who’d just love to cause mayhem in one of the world’s three largest financial centres.

Baroness Neville-Jones also suggested that we should learn as much as we can from the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Lahore.

“These attacks have worried city authorities the world over. What characterised the Mumbai atrocity was the deployment of small attack and assault teams. They were prolonged, running attacks and battles that brought the city to a standstill for three days or more. It took days for the authorities to regain control of the major hotels, for example.”

Interestingly, the Baroness also mentioned the issue of extreme weather conditions and how they can affect security. “I’m genuinely concerned that the Government has not paid enough attention to natural hazards [which formed a significant strand of the Pitt Report, of course]. There are most certainly unrealised synergies between security and natural hazards that must be addressed.”

What would the Tories do, then?

Then we came to that portion of the speech everyone had waited to hear. Assuming that a Conservative Government is voted back into power next May at the General Election, what are that party’s security policies likely to be?

“For a start, we want to allow individuals to be more involved in determining their own security regime,” explained Baroness Neville-Jones. “That would be part of our strategic direction. Proper strategic direction on security is based on solid organisation. To some extent the Cabinet Office seems to have lost its way of late, but a Conservative Government would put that right.”

Baroness Neville-Jones was so astute when suggesting that, whenever a different type of threat rears its ugly head, the current administration’s knee-jerk reaction has been to create a new body for addressing that threat without any regard for organisations already in place. The Critical National Infrastructure agenda was cited as a case in point.

“The military is best placed for the essential command and control role,” asserted the Baroness. “They need to be in a position to play an enhanced role but, at the moment, we can only rely on the fully-trained personnel who have not been deployed abroad. In other words, at this moment in time the Army’s availability cannot be guaranteed in numbers. As a result, the first responders cannot build the military into their forward planning.”

The whole issue of cyber security has, almost inevitably, ascended the corporate agenda. Baroness Neville-Jones preferred to talk about “cyber insecurity”, and she was perfectly right to do so.

“The cyber security plans laid down by the Government earlier this year did not go far enough. The Government and the citizens of this country are not geared up to fight cyber-crime. The larger finance houses will be, but they’re still vulnerable to attacks. Close and specialist attention needs to be paid to this subject.”

One of the basic problems here is that private sector organisations are never that well disposed towards talking about attacks perpetrated against them. There’s reputational damage to be considered and, as the Baroness explained, there’s really no one central office to which those attacks may be reported.

Serious level of ignorance within Government

“To be quite frank, there is a serious level of ignorance within Government about the vulnerability of its own systems,” outlined Baroness Neville-Jones, who then waxed lyrical about a Conservative Government that would establish Cyber-Security Operations Centres as a central conduit for all attack information.

“We need a common operational agenda and threat assessment in order to realise an agreed situational awareness across the nation.”

The focus of Baroness Neville-Jones’ speech then moved on to the role of the smaller business in security planning.

“Business continuity planning in such organisations can still be primitive. Also, management will tend to forget about the supply chain and its security and safety. That said, some excellent work has been done – and is being done – by local resilience Forums to make sure these issues are firmly on the agenda.”

For its part, the Government should make information about the risks facing SMEs readily available at all times and, more importantly, guide them as to how they can respond. “The National Risk Register does not yet provide this information,” said the Baroness. “This is the kind of detail that simply must be dispersed or we’ll always be stuck in this vicious circle.”

Clearly, much thought needs to be given to how companies can fit into an agreed and overarching local approach to security.

Concentrated training and co-operation

While the country is vulnerable to numerous security threats, so too is the City. “The threats can be ameliorated by concentrated training and co-operation,” outlined the Baroness.

“I would say again that the Government cannot provide nor guarantee total security,” she continued. “This is not about the State abdicating its responsibility to its citizens. Rather, it’s about true security and resources being activated and energised by trust and co-operation in direct support of shared goals.”

According to Baroness Neville-Jones, the single biggest deterrent we have to combat the terrorist threat is convicting those who are guilty and putting them behind bars. There has been success here of late with the Court case involving the liquid bomb plotters who were scheming to destroy commercial airlines and wreak as much havoc as occurred on 9/11. If that plot had succeeded, there would have been massive political repercussions.

The Baroness was also very clear on the state of policing in this country. “Too many warranted officers are stuck in the office while the PCSO’s patrol the streets. That’s not right. We have presided over a situation where anti-social behaviour has been allowed to destroy our society. This problem is widespread.” Indeed it is. Again, only the sternest of sentences for those convicted are good enough. The Judiciary’s ‘slap on the wrist’ culture must be halted.

“One of the problems is that, as a nation, we are riddled with standards,” explained the Baroness. “There are different security standards for different airports and ports, etc. There is a demonstrable need for interoperability on a much wider scale than is the case at present.”

Afghanistan: is there an answer?

The Afghanistan situation arose in open Q&A, and to her credit the Baroness didn’t dodge the subject. “Obviously, we would prefer the country not to be in the position it is now in terms of the military involvement, but that is where we are.”

As far as Baroness Neville-Jones is concerned, the “eye was off the ball for far too long”. The strategy in Afghanistan was not correct. “We cannot pull out yet, though. The political ramifications of doing so now would be huge. The security threat here on home shores would deteriorate further.”

In Afghanistan, we simply must not confuse insurgency with terrorism. What we have there at the moment is the former, but is it too late to get our act together? For Baroness Neville-Jones, the answer is an emphatic: “No!”

The topic of piracy on the high seas has been prevalent of late, with a spate of hijackings, thefts and physical assaults on crew members. What can be done about this? Some pointers were given last week at The Security Institutes Annual Conference by Cyrus Mody (manager of ICC Commercial Crime Services at the International Maritime Bureau). Look out for a review on SMT Online in due course.

“Pirates operate in an unconventional space,” suggested Baroness Neville-Jones. “We need to get to the villages where they reside so that we can catch the pirates before they put to sea. We should not abdicate our responsibility here as a member of the global community. The role of the Royal Navy is to protect and secure. It’s not just about the nuclear deterrent. The Royal Navy should be seen as one of the responsible policemen of the high seas.”

Perhaps the bankers can sleep soundly after all…

Despite the fact that their lavish lifestyles and profligate dealing on the trading floors has brought the country to its economic knees, it’s good to know that the Boys in Blue haven’t taken umbrage.

June’s crime figures for the City of London were very positive indeed, with fewer burglaries, less car crime and less violent crime recorded. Residential burglaries were down from 11 in 2008 nto 4 this year. There were 71 reported incidents of violent crime. The June 2008 figure was 106.

Meanwhile, a 30% reduction on last year’s number of thefts from customers in licensed premises occurred following a successful operation to target organised gangs of criminals.

In effect, the City of London has witnessed 387 less offences than this time last year – an overall reduction of nearly 20%.

An official blurb states: “If you work or live in the City, it’s important you tell the City of London Police your concerns so that they can work in partnership to resolve these issues.”

OK. My concern is this. Why is it that politicians and bankers who have either swindled or squandered funds (and caused the economic mess that’s costing innocent people their jobs and/or homes) are not being put before the Courts?

Are they any different to us ‘normal’ people? No. Aside from the fact that they don’t have any morals, that is.

Until next time…

SMT Online Editor’s View: A Nightmare on Green Street

On Tuesday 25 August, West Ham United played host to fierce rivals Millwall. Unfortunately, the night will be remembered more for the anarchy off the pitch than the Hammers’ 3-1 victory. Brian Sims looks at the security implications.

I’ve been a West Ham United supporter pretty much since the day I was born. Borrowing from an old cliché, I reckon that if you were to cut me I would indeed bleed claret and blue.

What’s more, I’ll never countenance anyone saying a bad word about Trevor Brooking. The man’s a God to me. So is Paolo di Canio who, in my opinion, is the best player ever to wear the badge with the crossed Hammers of the team that was founded in 1895 as The Thames Ironworks.

With me having only just gained my place in the Eastbrook Juniors’ school team in Hemel Hempstead at the tender age of eight, the 1975 FA Cup Final came around just a couple of months’ later.

As we stood in front of the displays in the window of Radio Rentals (anyone remember them?), my father asked me: “Who are you going to be supporting today then, son? Let me know and your mother and I will buy you a souvenir…”

The choice was either the black and white of Bobby Moore’s Fulham, or the claret and blue worn by the Hammers. Moore will always be a legend, not just to West Ham and Fulham fans but football fanatics the world over. I didn’t know that at the time, though.

To cut a long story short I picked the claret and blue scarf and matching team poster (purely because they were more colourful, as I recall), and wore said scarf while watching the game on The Magic Rectangle with my obligatory bag of popcorn and can of fizzy pop immediately to hand.

3.00 pm came and went. Former Rochdale unknown Alan Taylor bagged two goals for the boys from the East End. No reply from Fulham. By 4.50 pm, the bearded wonder Billy Bonds had lifted the FA Cup aloft to a sea of claret and blue inside Wembley Stadium. I was hooked, and decided there and then that West Ham would be my team for life.

From Chesterfield to Bucharest

Here we are, 34 years on. For 20 of those years after university I was a Season Ticket holder at Upton Park, travelling up hill and down dale in support of the lads. I’ve been just about everywhere, including Romania and Croatia on that rare occasion when we made it into the Uefa Cup via the Intertoto Cup under Harry Redknapp’s ‘wheeler dealer’ stewardship.

Then there was the more recent trip to the Sicilian enclave of Palermo, again for the Uefa Cup. All sounds very glamorous, but if you’re a real West Ham fan what matters is turning out at Newcastle on a Monday night for a league game, or at Chesterfield on a Sunday for an FA Cup tie.

The kind of matches that only the genuine, die-hard fans would contemplate. The kind of matches the Johnny-Come-Lately types so prevalent these days live for so that they can tune-in to Sky Sports and pretend they’re really into football when they hit the office of a Monday morning.

I’ve been to all of those games and hundreds upon hundreds more besides. Bought the Real Fan T-shirt ten times over, as they say, and nearly every time with my best friends and fellow Hammers Andrew Cheeseman (more of whom anon), Daniel Morris and Paul Potton right alongside me.

One year – it was the 1994-1995 season, I think – I went to EVERY game. Pre-season, home and away, friendlies. You name it, I was there. I’m very proud of that, and I will be until the day I die.

Nothing stays the same forever

Time marches on, though, and circumstances evolve. I last visited Upton Park in August 2007 for the first two home league games of the season – one against Wigan, the other versus Manchester City (the club that is currently spending obscene sums of money in an equally obscene attempt to buy success, just like Chelsea and Blackburn Rovers before them).

In January of that year, you see, I met my wife-to-be Annora. Football had to take a back seat! I moved my life to start a new one with my beloved in a different country and, given the distances involved plus ongoing work commitments, I did something I never thought I’d EVER do.

That’s right. I gave up my Season Ticket in the Bobby Moore Stand Lower Tier. Row DD Seat 72, for all you fact fans. A prime position right behind the goal with Andy, Dan and Paul all in close proximity. It was hard to justify £500 for two or three games a season, after all.

I’ll always be a Hammer – even though I’m now a Season Ticket holder at Glasgow Rangers (I’ll tell you the story of how that came to pass some other time!) – and I have dutifully continued to follow from afar.

Funnily enough, I was thinking of going back to Upton Park for The Carling Cup second round tie against Millwall on Tuesday 25 August but, given what transpired that night, I’m thankful I decided instead to work on forthcoming features and webinars for SMT Online 

Something of a scene-setter

Even if you’re not a football fan, I’m sure by now you will have witnessed the horrific images or heard the stories about a plot of land in the heart of East London that, for a few sharp hours, resembled a battleground.

As a gentle reminder, and a scene-setter, there were violent scuffles in Green Street and on the Barking Road. A 44-year-old, Millwall-supporting family man was stabbed in Priory Road behind the East Stand.

Pitch invasions took place. Three of them. People were carried out of Upton Park with blood streaming from gaping head wounds. The police attempted to maintain law and order in front of The Queens pub near Upton Park London Underground station while being pelted with bricks, bottles (whole and broken) and any other detritus that happened to be in the vicinity.

Forget The Carling Cup. This was The Cup Final of Hooliganism.

To be honest, as soon as I saw the draw I knew this was going to happen. All the self-styled ‘Top Boys’ (as they used to call themselves) would surely crawl out from under their stones for one last crack at the old enemy?

They’d been waiting for this for years. Five years, in fact. March 2004 was the last time these two clubs met. West Ham were beaten 4-1 at The New Den in The Championship. Seats had been ripped out and used as missiles. There were arrests galore. Eight police horses on the pitch to subdue the morons. I was there, but thankfully nowhere near the trouble, and subsequently wrote to Lewisham Borough Police commander Archibald Torrance to commend his officers on their superb efforts.

Knuckle scrapers come out to play

No doubt fuelled by recent films like The Football Factory and Green Street – which paint a nice Hollywood-style sheen on football violence to the point of making it seem a glamorous ‘occupation’ – the old lags dragged their knuckles along the streets of Newham once again and, in the process, brought massive disgrace to both clubs.

Not only that, they may have opened the floodgates for every other psycho who thinks it’s cool to wear a Burberry baseball cap, Stone Island sweater and the latest Nike Air trainers while beating someone to a pulp to join in, stand up and be counted.

For Janet Street-Porter’s ‘yoof of today’, here was a chance to experience the mass battles they have read so much about in tomes by the likes of ex-‘Top Boys’ Dougie and Eddie Brimson (who once ‘ran’ with Watford’s firm) that are mock-heroic and, I’m told, grossly exaggerated.

Nonetheless, today’s teenagers and early 20-somethings will devour the pages written by the Brimson brothers – and others – and begin to dream of emulating these authors while experiencing the adrenalin rush they’ve been assured emanates from creating such unchecked mayhem.

What the old lags most certainly have done is re-open the debate on football hooliganism, and the quality and quantity of policing and security measures that (still) necessarily surround it.

What do the statistics tell us?

The statistics compilers may well point to the fact that football-related violence is now at its lowest level for many years. During the 2007-2008 season, football attendances in England and Wales reached 37 million, while ‘only’ 3,842 arrests were made in connection with games. Currently, there are 3,154 people banned from attending matches. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

However, if any of us were under the impression that CCTV, all-seater stadiums, disgustingly high ticket prices and Roy Keane’s Prawn Sandwich Brigade had seen off ‘The Bad Boys’ then we are all very much mistaken. They’re alive and well and, what’s more, they always have been.

In reality, I believe the problem has never been addressed in any kind of satisfactory depth.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, these days, the ‘offs’ (ie fights) are all orchestrated via the BlackBerry, mobile phone or laptop. They don’t happen near the grounds any longer – West Ham versus Millwall being the exception to the recent rule – because the thugs know they’ll be caught on camera. They’ll meet up somewhere else instead, either before or after the game.

What, exactly, is being done about this? In an era when the Government knows everything about you (including your waist size and whether you like to eat one or two boiled eggs for breakfast), you’d think PM Brown and his buddy Alan Johnson would be hot on the trail of these people.

Quite obviously not, it seems.

The game would be “policed accordingly”

It came as no surprise to me – or indeed any other West Ham fan, I suspect – when the Metropolitan Police Service categorised this latest encounter with Millwall as a ‘high risk’ sporting event that would, said New Scotland Yard, be “policed accordingly” – but was it?

Law-abiding fans like my friends Andy and Dan were trapped inside the ground and outside after the game concluded, worried at all turns if they were going to have a switchblade shoved in their direction by some sub-primate hailing from South East London.

Yesterday, Andy told me that he and Dan didn’t see a single police officer prior to the game (which began at 7.45 pm), and yet the trouble started at around 5.30 pm. He also didn’t see a single police officer inside the stadium. What does that tell you?

Questions have to be asked. Were the Metropolitan Police pre-occupied with planning for the Climate Camp protests and the Notting Hill Carnival? Did they seriously underestimate the risk of violence at an evening fixture between two clubs with a venomous rivalry on and off the field that stretches back into The Dark Ages?

The Met assigned 500 officers to the game. Clearly not enough for an attendance of 25,000 inside the ground and plenty of others solely there to create a disturbance. Another 125 ‘public order’ officers had to be drafted in when the unseemly scrapping began outside the stadium and the commanders realised the Boys in Blue were in trouble.

In fact, it took an estimated 750 officers from the Met and the British Transport Police (BTP) to (eventually) restore some semblance of order.

Around 200 officers in riot gear, who were supported by at least 20 mounted officers, patrolled outside Upton Park London Underground station long after the game’s conclusion.

Cut your coat to suit your cloth

Chief superintendent Steve Wisbey, who oversaw the policing operation, suggested that: “Some people had come to the game intent on causing a confrontation”. Tell us something else we didn’t know.

As soon as the draw was made, if Wisbey and Co were cogniscent of the fact that was going to be the case (and you must assume that they were), why did the Met and BTP chiefs allow the match to be played on a week night with the potential for all-day drinking and fight arrangements beforehand?

It’s even more galling when you consider that all recent West Ham versus Millwall encounters have been enacted on a Sunday lunchtime with a view to avoiding just such a scenario.

Did the TV moguls do the dictating yet again? It wouldn’t shock me, to be honest. After all, they couldn’t care less about the fans or what the police service wants.

The arrival of The Premiership and Sky Sports broadcasting heralded a three-day footballing weekend which has added “a real challenge” (not my words, but those of chief constable Andy Trotter) to the heavy strain already placed upon the British Transport Police’s 3,000 frontline officers.

It strikes me that the BTP and indeed all UK police services need to summon some guts for a fight of their own and tell Sky Sports, ESPN or whomever when they want such matches to be played. At present, the tail appears to be wagging the dog and that’s an extremely unhealthy situation.

Again, anecdotal evidence suggests that there was no attempt to segregate fans as they emerged from Upton Park London Underground station on to Green Street. Fair enough, it’s difficult to tell one team’s supporter from that of the opposing side if both are bereft of ‘colours’ (as we football fans like to call replica shirts or other club motifs), but surely there must have been some intelligence from inside both West Ham and Millwall’s ranks?

Were the BTP not tracking ‘traffic’ of the Millwall mobs making their way across the tube network from London Bridge? Do they not have people with their ear to the ground, infiltrating both the Millwall and West Ham gangs or at the very least finding out on the grapevine what’s going on?

Lame justification for gratuitous violence

Millwall supporters are alleged to have said that the decision to restrict the club’s ticket allocation to just 2,300 angered many of them and increased the risk of people travelling to Upton Park without tickets (presumably with other activities on their mind once there). That’s a lame justification for being involved in gratuitous violence, is it not?

“Inadequate” and “appalling” are two of the words fans have used to describe the policing on the night. For my money, there must be some kind of investigation conducted to determine what went on, and the findings must then be made public for all to see.

Did West Ham United – as the host club, and my club – play its fullest part in planning security measures for this game?

On the attendance side, they were only allowing people with a purchasing history at the club to buy match tickets. Presumably I would have qualified then, but pricing the match at only £10 for some areas (like the Bobby Moore Stand) would surely have encouraged some lesser lights to ‘fancy it’? The one-game-a-season wonders who don’t really care if they’re subsequently banned for public order offences.

What about the stewarding? OK. It’s fair enough to surmise that, as happened at this particular game, if one steward is confronted by two, five, ten or more yobs hurtling towards him or her intent on encroaching upon the field of play then there’s not much they can do about it.

However, from what I saw on the Sky Sports footage of the crowd, at those ends of the main stand and the East Stand that abut the away fans’ area the stewards were totally ineffectual. They may as well not have been there.

Of course, political clout and money enjoyed by the powers-that-be within The Football Association (FA) and The Premier League have managed to exempt plenty of event stewards working at football grounds from having to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority and undertake compulsory conflict resolution training. Like many retail organisations, the FA and The Premier League think their security standards are way above anything the SIA’s recognised training partners could ever teach them.

Take another look at the footage from Upton Park and tell me if they’re right. ‘Fans’ were allowed to invade the pitch not once but two or three times over, yet they were not herded out of the ground as they should have been.

Remember, it’s a criminal offence to encroach on the field of play at any football stadium (as we innocent supporters are continually informed by the PA system both before the game and again at the interval).

Same old words, same old faces

Of course, as soon as it all ‘kicked off’ down Green Street way, we waited – but not with bated breath – for all the tired platitudes and condemnations to spew forth from the usual suspects in Wednesday’s newspapers. As ever, Home Secretary Johnson and others didn’t disappoint.

“The dark days of violence on the terraces in the 1970s and 1980s are now behind us thanks to targeted policing, proper crowd control, football banning orders and a change in attitude among fans,” said Johnson in his usual waxing lyrical mode. “We will not be returning to the days when a hooligan minority shamed the name of football.”

Really? Let’s reserve judgment on that one for the time being.

Hot on Johnson’s neatly tailored heels, sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe branded the violence which marred the game as “a disgrace to football”. He has thrown his “full support” behind the FA’s call for life bans for anyone found to have been involved in the incidents before, during and after the Upton Park ‘Fight Night Special’.

“We have made great progress in the past 20 years in tackling football hooliganism in this country,” urged Sutcliffe, “and we will not tolerate any return to the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s when it plagued the game.”

Tellingly, in the wake of the match Sutcliffe also said: “We will never be complacent in the fight against football violence.” Well, from where I was sitting and watching in South Lanarkshire there seemed to be a fair amount of complacency surrounding Upton Park on 25 August, Mr Sutcliffe.

Meanwhile, Football League chief operating officer Andy Williamson said: “We utterly deplore the violence that took place at the match between West Ham United and Millwall. Such behaviour has no place in the game, and we will work with all the relevant authorities to ensure that those behind it are held to account. Football has made huge progress in the last 30 years when it comes to the management of matches. The whole game must continue to demonstrate that such behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Made huge progress? The football authorities and clubs have certainly hiked up ticket prices by some margin. They’ve also decided to charge £60 for shirts that cost £5-£10 to manufacture in Far Eastern ‘sweat shops’ where the workers are treated like dirt. Oh yes, and they’ve built nice corporate boxes to wine and dine the sponsors whose bloated guests have little or no interest in the game. Yes. That’s huge progress.

If you know your history…

Even West Ham’s chief executive Scott Duxbury was in on the act. “This is a family club [Aren’t they all? Ed] and the Boleyn Ground has always been a safe place in which all supporters can enjoy their football,” eulogised Duxbury on the club’s official web site. “We are determined to ensure this remains the case.”

This is a man who needs to do some serious homework. Back in 1977, when my father first took me to Upton Park, I can remember all sorts of nasty types selling fascist and pro-communist rags right outside the stadium.

To this day, touts flog tickets on the black market under the stewards’ noses and those of the police. They do so immediately adjacent to the main gates, and yet nothing is done about it. Those buyers could be anybody.

Duxbury also seems to have forgotten about the Inter City Firm, the name of West Ham’s ‘firm’ whose members pioneered the leaving of ‘calling cards’ on their victims after they’d sliced them up in broad daylight. 

The away fans used to be corralled in the right hand corner of what is now the Bobby Moore Stand (back in the days of terracing, it was named the South Bank), and there were regular scraps between them and home supporters, with stories of West Ham’s ‘fans’ urinating on their counterparts, throwing missiles, etc. You get the picture.

I might be West Ham through and through, but I’m not blind to reality like Mr Duxbury appears to be. Then again, he’s not a West Ham man by heritage, so maybe I’m expecting too much.

Hefty fines and life bans to follow

If we are to believe these platitudes spouted by Duxbury and the like then expect to see hefty fines dished out and life bans apportioned. Maybe even a spell behind bars for those involved in the thick end of the violence. Frankly, that’s the very least they deserve.

However, is all of that going to solve the situation?

On the night only 13 arrests were made, but that number is expected to escalate when the Met’s very own CCTV intelligence team collects and studies footage from inside and outside the Boleyn Ground. Football banning orders will then be sought against those who can be identified.

It’s all well and good preventing these illiterate morons from attending games but, as happened on this occasion, they can still turn up on site – seemingly unhindered – before, during and after the match to add fuel to the already high emotional flames.

No doubt any attempts to shackle them would be met with disgust by Liberty. We must maintain freedom on the streets, though. Let the football hooligans walk side-by-side with tomorrow’s suicide bombers, but don’t get in their way, stop them or question them, please… Marvellous, isn’t it?

I recall a television programme a few years ago that named and shamed hooligans following the England team abroad. One of them was a West Ham fan whom Paul and I recognised. According to the programme, he had been banned from every football ground in the country. Funny how he seemed to make it into the West Ham section at all the away games both before and long after that programme was broadcast…

Could this be a ‘call to arms’?

There are plenty of people from ‘The Hooligan Era’ who have become alienated from football as a result of the game ‘moving upmarket’. They will undoubtedly view the ugly scenes at Upton Park with glee. For them, it’s little short of a ‘call to arms’.

One rather fatuous argument suggests that any resurrection of trouble at matches will drive the corporate freeloaders away from the game and return it to the hands of The Mob. Hence, running fights both inside and around the grounds in the months and years to come would make football somewhat less palatable, eventually leading to Sky withdrawing its vast riches from the sport. It would probably quash our bid for the 2018 World Cup, too.

As I discussed with the taxi driver who ferried me to Glasgow International Airport yesterday morning, that would leave The Premiership in an utter mess. Wages and profits in football would then fall dramatically, so too ticket prices. Many will say that’s a good thing, but none of us want to see hooliganism as the facilitator of such a landscape.

Hooliganism is not coming back. Why? Like I said, it’s not coming back because, in truth, it has never gone away.

CCTV and policing tactics make sure that it remains a (largely) underground threat. However, if the incidents that occurred on Tuesday 25 August in East London have taught us anything it’s that the threat is still very much alive and kicking.

No amount of prawn sandwiches or polite Japanese tourists wearing Chelsea shirts on the King’s Road will disguise that fact.

Until next time.

SMT Online Editor’s View: The best laid plans of the SIA

The Security Industry Authority recently issued its Corporate and Business Plan covering the period 2009-2010 up to the Olympic Games in 2012. Is there any cause for alarm on reading the contents? Brian Sims offers his views on the core elements.

Not so long ago – on 31 July, if I’m being precise – an interesting missive was published that appeared to slip quietly under many peoples’ corporate radar. The missive in question? The Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) Corporate and Business Plan for 2009-2010 through to 2011-2012. It’s a publication worthy of scrutiny, not least because of the number of issues it raises.

As you would expect, there’s a bullish Foreword courtesy of the Regulator’s chairman, Baroness Ruth Henig. “The SIA, like all UK Regulators, faces a challenging future,” begins the Baroness. “Against a backdrop of economic downturn and uncertainty, the need for effective yet proportionate regulation of the security industry has never been clearer.” I don’t think there can be any argument with that statement.

There’s talk of an organisation that’s continuing “to stabilise and strengthen” following the numerous – and well-documented – problems that occurred during 2007, and again last year.

“We are, in most regards,” continues Baroness Henig, “now running extremely well and striving to improve customer service”. One would need to canvass the opinions of the industry served by the Regulator to corroborate whether or not that effort is paying dividends on the ground.

What is a cast-iron certainty is the fact that the SIA desperately needed to produce a three-year plan underpinned by stability. A plan flexible enough to respond to what is now a swift-changing security industry and economic position in the UK as a whole. There’s behind-closed-doors talk of industry growth at present, but we’ll need to bide our time before that comes to fruition.

Dealing in reality, not conjecture

The Regulator can – and should – only deal in reality. At the present time, those realities include the imminent re-tendering of its managed service provision, assimilating a new chief executive in the shape of Bill Butler and planning for events such as London 2012.

In addition, there’s the results of the differentiation study on the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) to be ironed out and, of course, the ongoing saga of in-house licensing.

On that last point, just because the Government has – wrongly, in my view – decided to sweep in-house regulation under the carpet for another three years, that doesn’t mean Security Management Today Online (and many others) will see fit to ignore it.

The role of the in-house officer is no different from the contracted officer. Why should one be subject to regulation and not the other?

99% of universities use in-house staff for security. Those members of staff carry out similar duties to Wardens and Special Constables. Is that not worthy of a licence? It’s also acknowledged that in-house staff are not always vetted to the same degree as contracted officers. How is that in any way a good thing, and not potentially injurious to the public’s welfare if they’re operating on the front line?

In-house personnel MUST be licensed if we are to maintain any sort of credibility here, not to mention consistency of service delivery. Over the next three years, at the very least we can actively encourage the in-house fraternity to voluntarily licence itself. I’ve seen several operations of late where this has happened, and it’s commendable on the part of the clients.

If in-house security operations were to be licensed then the estimated 5%-10% of the industry not conducting its business in a legitimate fashion would be easily identifiable and could then be removed from the scene. Surely such action can only raise the standard and integrity of the private security sector?

Significant change for the Regulator

Returning to matters more immediate, the last two years have undoubtedly witnessed significant change for the Regulator. For a start, there has been a 35% increase in licensing applications. Running in parallel with this, the SIA has pinpointed a defined requirement to ‘stabilise’ the process of conducting Right To Work checks for all applicants outwith the European Economic Area (EEA).

The SIA report’s Executive Summary points out – in semi-triumphal language – that the ACS now lists 600-plus companies on its register (630, in fact, as of 10 August) and champions the scheme’s catchment of approximately 60% of all individuals working within the private security sector. “There have been major convictions, sending a strong and positive message that is welcomed by the vast majority of the private security industry”. Hold these statements in your mind, as I’ll come back to them in due course.

Interestingly, the Executive Summary also spells out the Regulator’s key priorities for the next three years. They are to:

• take forward proposals that will see the introduction of compulsory business licensing (with a tacit recognition that this is likely to induce pretty significant change in terms of the way in which the Regulator is organised, and how it functions)
• as stated, retender the outsourced managed service and “transition to a new service provider contract without negatively affecting service levels”
• build capacity to “deliver a more consistent level of customer service” and “improve performance across the licensing service”
• invest in its people (who are described by the Baroness as “energetic” and having “a first class attitude”) to support new challenges and higher levels of professionalism
• manage the change programme, extending it to new regions and sectors subject to impact assessments and Parliamentary approval
• maintain and develop the existing network of compliance and enforcement partnerships, thereby “building on recent successes”

The Regulator has “made building a proactive, dynamic and resilient organisation a priority”. The headline target for the percentage of applications dealt with inside 33 days for both UK and EEA applications is now increased from 80% to 85%, while the Contact Centre telephone response time target is being enhanced such that 95% of all calls are answered within 30 seconds. That will all be achieved thanks to a “strong focus on efficiency” (which is a common thread running throughout the report).

Better security for the enlightened client

The economic turmoil wrought by Gordon Brown and Co, not to mention a few corporate bankers, has inevitably created a causal link with an increase in criminality. By now, the sensible client organisations should have beefed-up their security. Many haven’t, of course, but more fool them. They’ll not enjoy answering to the insurance companies when claims time comes around.

The SIA knows that the current levels of criminality could well lead to further increases in licence applications, and has planned for just such an occurrence. It’s a sensible position to adopt.

Moving on, the Regulator is said to be “implementing a more robust demand forecasting model”. By inference, does that mean the one already in place isn’t quite up to scratch? At the same time, the SIA is said to be “increasing its flexible staffing resource to deal with potential surges in licence application demand while keeping additional cost to a minimum”.

On the subject of better regulation, the report states: “We [ie the SIA] welcome the ever-present challenge to ensure that we continue to keep the impact of regulation on the industry proportionate as we extend it to new sectors. We will continue to develop our approach to be targeted, risk-based and proportionate in line with the Hampton principles. We aim to further enhance working with compliance and law enforcement partners to multiply our capacity.”

The Regulator’s missive then suggests: “Our compliance activity will be focused where there is the greatest risk of non-compliance, and where that non-compliance undermines the purpose of regulation, which is to protect the public.”

Perhaps that explains the plethora of enforcement activity in the pubs and clubs sector of late, and the myriad press releases issued on the back of it.

On that note, it’s very good indeed that the Regulator is showing its teeth, but there’s a real danger of overkill here. We’re never really told what happens on these inspection visits. What processes are used to target certain venues? How are miscreants brought to Court? How do the SIA’s investigators interact with local licensing officers and members of the police service? The press statements offer the bare facts, but we need some meat on the bones now.

Commissioning of increased systems capacity

The delivery of an improved service to customers has largely focused on improvements to the outsourced service delivery from the chosen managed service provider.

Of late, the Regulator has commissioned increased systems capacity to accommodate rising levels of data, an upgrade of its IT infrastructure with a view to enhancing performance and improvements to the ways in which it monitors capacity in order to be able to deal with increases in licence application numbers.

Under the sub-heading ‘Simplification’, the Regulator comments: “We are committed to the Government’s target to cut red tape by 25% between 2005 and 2010”. There’s not long to go, then, if this is to be achieved. “Our efforts to reduce the administrative burdens and policy costs of our regulation are included in the Home Office’s Simplification Plan, which is published annually.” The soon-to-be-introduced online application process should help in this regard.

As you may or may not know, various parts of the Home Office are involved in the development of more robust employee vetting and Right To Work checks. Created under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the new Vetting and Barring Scheme will replace existing disqualification regimes. An entirely new organisation – the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) – will decide who is unsuitable to work with vulnerable groups.

That organisation’s decisions will be based on pulling together information held by various agencies, Government departments and the Criminal Records Bureau. Once the scheme is fully rolled-out, it will be illegal to hire someone in regulated activity positions who isn’t registered, and has not been checked by the ISA.

To its credit, the Regulator is open to using new technologies (among them biometrics). It claims to be “keeping a watching brief” on work conducted by other Government agencies – including the Identity and Passport Service and the UK Border Agency – in that very arena. Flexibility is the key here.

Improved compliance systems on the horizon?

Harking back to enforcement, there’s talk of implementing new and improved compliance and intelligence systems alongside a strong continuance and development of all compliance and enforcement partnerships. The SIA report states: “Next year, we intend to make preparations to ensure that we benefit from the power to impose further sanctions – which fall short of prosecution – provided by the Regulatory Enforcement Sanctions Act 2008.”

It must be said that recent achievements are impressive. Of late, 30% more licence applications have been processed than were originally planned. That’s promising news. However, when talk turns to the ACS I’m not so confident about what’s being said.

The report reads: “In 2008, we exceeded our forecast for the number of Approved Contractors, with more than 95% of companies re-registering during the year, and over 150 companies applying for approval for the first time. These high levels of registration are indicative of the value of the scheme to security contractors and their customers.”

Let me begin by confirming once again my wholehearted support for the Regulator and its work, and for the ethics underpinning the ACS.

That said, much like former BSIA chief executive David Dickinson I’m duty bound to be a critical friend of the SIA. I cannot see how 630 Approved Contractors – a figure predicted to rise to 700 come March 2010, as we were informed at last May’s Stakeholder Conference in Manchester – is a ‘positive’ when the original thoughts of the industry were that 200 (or even as little a figure as 100) companies might be an acceptable ‘cap’ on matters.

The Regulator’s view is that every company managing to jump over the bar is another one that has passed muster to be a compliant and responsible security company.

That all sounds very nice, but it doesn’t square with comments from the industry. Many practitioners are complaining that there’s no differentiation – if you’ll pardon the pun – for registered firms. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that companies are still having to win work on price, and that harbouring the SIA’s ‘Stamp of Approval’ – or indeed any other ‘badge’ – matters little at the tendering stage.

Swelling the Government’s coffers

We cannot bury our heads in the sand on this issue. It simply must be addressed. It’s all very well the ACS swelling the Government’s coffers to the tune of around £2 million on an annual basis, but where’s the promised ‘kick-back’ (for want of a better phrase) for the guarding companies who are fully-paid up members?

Perhaps there is little or no incentive for the Regulator to raise the bar for entry from its current height given that it has been seen to do what the Government asked of it in terms of laying down the bare minimum standards for legal operation. Cynics would suggest that setting the bar at a lower level allows more companies to jump over – as, indeed, has been proven to be the case – and then the Government can rake in yet more cash on a never-ending basis.

With the ‘pass’ bar set at its current level, there really appears to be no differentiator for the Stakeholder to discern. What’s more, there is no mention of British Standards anywhere within the ACS, and yet documents like BS 7499 are those by which the industry swears, and has done for some time now.

We are in the midst of the worst recession this country has known in an age. That’s not helping matters, as cash-savvy clients – mainly procurers rather than the security purists, I hasten to add – will take every advantage that brings with it and nail their service providers down to the lowest rate for the job possible.

It’s then that ‘niceties’ like smaller portfolios of clients for operations and area managers and the not insignificant matter of sufficient training disappear like smoke in the wind.

All of the fat will be trimmed out of the guarding businesses, then, but what are those same concerns going to do in 18 months’ time when (hopefully) we’re out of the recession and matters are back to normal (or as normal as they can be with this shambles of a Government potentially still at the reins)? Guarding companies will not be able to go back to the prices they once charged, that’s for sure. Where does that leave the industry?

National contracts between guarding contractors and multinationals with nationwide coverage used to pull in margins of around 13% or so. For any other type of contract it would be 15%. Now, the market’s averaging something like half that figure. In the long run, this simply isn’t sustainable. You know that. I know that. The world seemingly knows that, but what’s being done about it?

Neither can we afford to ignore the in-house issue. The SIA’s decision was based mainly on the fact that no evidence was produced to corroborate the suggestion that not licensing in-house personal could present a danger to the public. Thinking about it, how many in-house teams are going to open themselves up to public scrutiny and ‘open book accounting’ by telling the world all about how and when they messed up?

I think we all know the answer to that one. That’s not the SIA’s fault, of course.

Where was the BSIA statement on in-house?

Sticking with this issue for the moment, I’m still a little perturbed about the fact that the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) kept very quiet on this subject at the time when the SIA’s decision was publicly announced. What’s more, the BSIA has been silent ever since. There was no statement issued at all.

I’m pretty certain there are a fair few contractors represented by the Trade Association’s Security Guarding Section who oppose the in-house decision, and yet their views have not been given a platform in the wider industry.

When the ACS first came on stream, some contractors asked why they should keep on continuing to pay into the BSIA if it were to be the former that would now be the guarantor of work. (Then) BSIA chief executive David Dickinson batted back the question by claiming the SIA did not have the remit for political lobbying on behalf of the workforce enjoyed by the Trade Association.

Well, on the in-house issue I’ve seen no lobbying whatsoever from the BSIA. Is there a party line to be voiced? Is the feeling that, because the Government has shelved the issue for three years, it’s not worth commenting on?

Just this week I’ve heard on the grapevine that an official statement is imminent. I for one will be very interested to ascertain what it says.

Implementing the ‘Change Portfolio’

By the end of the present financial year, the SIA will have generated £37 million worth of gross income, and a surplus in the region of £2.9 million. That’s offset against a deficit of £610,000 accrued in the previous year. Simple calculation tells you that leaves around £2.3 million. What happens to this tidy sum?

The aptly-named ‘Change Portfolio’ implemented by the Regulator will, of course, allow it to extend the licensing remit to Northern Ireland come the end of this year, develop the aforementioned business licensing scheme (subject to the usual impact assessment study, with a potential roll-out by sector from late 2010 onwards) and “ensure that the organisation has the capability and capacity to manage uncertainty”.

There is a ‘Change Model’ and a ‘Change Process’ in place. The former is made up of four levels of governance: the SIA Board (which sets strategic direction), the Change Board (comprising the Executive Management Board members, who act as the formal point at which approval is afforded to either commission or close a major change initiative before seeking main Board endorsement where needed), the director level management and the SIA Programme Board (which is directly responsible for the successful delivery of the programme outcomes and realisation of benefits).

In line with its long-stated desire for 100% transparency, the Regulator has again outlined its financial plans. It’s common knowledge that the SIA’s day-to-day operations are funded on a cost recovery basis from both licensing fees and monies gathered as a result of the ACS. Major expenditures, on the other hand, are picked up by the Government Stakeholder directly responsible for achieving the stated aims. For example, the Northern Ireland Office is funding the forthcoming extension to the Emerald Isle.

“Accurately predicting the demand for SIA licences continues to be a considerable challenge,” opines the Regulator. In years gone by the reason given was a lack of sufficient, reliable data provided by the newly-regulated private security sector. The high volumes of licences issued in 2006 will make up a large percentage of the applications for the remainder of this year and next.

Then there’s the economic downturn to consider. As I said, some commentators feel this will result in increasing crime and therefore greater demand for licensed security personnel. In recent months, the SIA has indeed experienced a like-for-like upsurge in applications, but prediction here is far from an exact science.

Annual requirement for fee review remains unchanged

The budget allocated to 2009-2010 makes for interesting reading. Income for 2008-2009 including licence fee gathering, monies from the ACS and ‘other funding’ (courtesy of the Home Office and the like) ran to £36,979,116. The allocation for 2009-2010 is £37,729,128.

There’s a plan in place to achieve objectives within current fee levels for the 2009-2010 financial year by maintaining a focus on efficiency. Given that the SIA is primarily self-funded, it goes without saying there’ll still be a need to review fees every year.

One wonders what may happen to the Regulator if and when there is a change of Government? Given the party’s history of keeping a tight hold on regulatory reins, it’s no surprise to learn that Conservative leader David Cameron is keen on cutting back when it comes to the number of such bodies espoused and supported by the current administration.

Might the SIA be one of those organisations that Cameron is secretly targeting for the chop?

I sincerely hope not. The SIA isn’t perfect for everyone and, what’s more, it will never be perfect for everyone. Anyone who fully expects it to be so is, frankly, living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Much better to have it there and support it than not, though. The Regulator is an important focal point.

The foundations have been laid, then, but there is much, much more work still to be done if we are to realise the halcyon days of a guarding industry that’s profitable, properly and justly respected and genuinely viewed as an integral part of the national law enforcement and security agenda.

When that day comes, and it must, security guarding will have truly made its mark. That is why we cannot afford to be deflected from the current agenda, and why we must be honest with ourselves about what is happening in the marketplace around us.

Until next time.

SMT Online Editor’s View: The Case of Crime Law Overload

Criminal laws, the British Crime Survey, knife attacks, the rise in fraud episodes, the ‘usefulness’ of CCTV and best business strategy in the recession. Brian Sims offers impassioned views on several key issues of the moment. 

So the Lord Chief Justice – the aptly-surnamed Sir Igor Judge – feels that the UK has passed too many anti-crime bills into law. It’s a comment that echoes a similar complaint from Lord Judge’s immediate predecessor, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who moaned only last February that sentencing criminals was becoming much harder due to Labour’s “ceaseless torrent of new legislation”. A torrent which, in his eyes at least, is “extremely hard to justify”. 

In short, the overriding belief among legal eagles is that there’s too much legislation framed in too many words which, in turn, is creating far too many crimes. 

The best beliefs are based in fact, and Lord Judge – the leading criminal officer in England and Wales and head of the judiciary – supports that bold assertion by citing six major Acts containing more than 1,000 separate sections and 68 additional schedules which went on to the Statute Book in 2003 alone. 

First up, there’s the 2003 Extradition Act. That’s the legislation currently being used to send computer hacker Gary McKinnon across the Pond for trial by US television even though his crimes were committed in Britain. While Lord Judge doesn’t criticise the content of this law (which opponents feel has been heavily weighted in favour of fulfilling the ambitions of US authorities to put British citizens on trial in America), he believes it to be “unnecessary”. 

The Lord Chief Justice also mentions four other Acts from 2003: the Crime (International Co-operation) Act, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, the Courts Act and the Sexual Offences Act. Not forgetting the ‘jewel in the crown’ that is the Criminal Justice Act, with its 339 sections, 38 schedules and a grand total of 1,169 paragraphs. That’s legislation gone mad. 

Criminal legislation: less is more

The latter analysis excludes schedule 37, which sets out no less than 20 pages of statutory repeals. It doesn’t end there, either. No less than 21 Commencement and Transitional Savings Orders have been made under this Act, the first in 2003 and the last in 2008. 

“This year,” stated Sir Igor Judge, “the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) (Amendment) Order of 2009/616 was made, amending the eighth Commencement Order. Each of these provisions produced different starting days for different statutory provisions, all for a single Act.” There’s only one word for that. Ridiculous. 

It’s pretty obvious that major constitutional changes are now being made without senior judges having been consulted. Indeed, constitutional changes by the Government from 2003 onwards, which removed the Lord Chancellor from responsibilities as head of the judiciary, were instigated – according to Lord Judge – “without so much as the courtesy of a letter or even a telephone call” to the Lord Chief Justice. 

Even the hugely contraversial decision two years ago to divide the Home Office and create what we now recognise as the Ministry of Justice was announced to the world by a Government minister in an article published by one of the well-known Sunday newspapers. 

In all, Labour has created over 3,500 new acts of criminality since it wrested power from the Conservatives in 1997, more than 1,200 of them through full-scale primary Parliamentary legislation. No less than 1,036 new offences have been realised which can result in jail terms. That’s the equivalent of a new offence being introduced every four days. Like I said before, it’s ridiculous, but one supposes it keeps a few people in legal admin offices from the dole queue. 

The Lord Chief Justice delivered what can only be described as his unprecedented broadsides against Labour’s legislative record on 14 July when speaking at the Lord Mayor of London’s annual dinner for judges. Tellingly, he did so with Jack Straw, the justice secretary and Lord Chancellor, right by his side. 

Barrage of pointless and damaging laws

An absolutely perfect scenario for my money because this Government has – poorly, one might add – attempted to conceal its failure to govern by introducing a barrage of pointless and all-too-often damaging legislation. The sheer volume of new laws renders little or no time for the Civil Service to draw them up with any kind of real detail, nor for Parliament to scrutinise them properly. 

Take the Human Rights Act, for example. Introduced by Straw himself, who insisted that when the Act became law in 2000 it would have virtually no significant impact. I wouldn’t say that, exactly. The Human Rights Act has done nothing if not revolutionise the law in Britain. Many commentators feel it has actively transferred huge powers to a new generation of heavily politicised judges who constantly thwart the will of Parliament in key areas (including the restraint of terrorists, privacy, freedom of expression and the treatment of migrants). 

Then there’s the whole area of anti-social behaviour. Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into being, the Courts have been allowed to hand out ASBOs at will. However, only 7,000 have ever been issued. In truth, in some parts of the country they’re treated with such disdain that each order has been breached on an average of three occasions. Deterrent? Don’t make me laugh. 

In 2000, as I was occupying the Editor’s Chair on Security Management Today for the first time, Labour passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which was designed to limit the ability of the State to spy on its people. Instead, this law has had the opposite effect, creating a new bureaucracy to allow State snooping by a total of 800 different organisations. All local councils are included in that bunch. 

Never have we had it so bad

Arguably, the area where we’ve suffered most from bad legislation brought hastily into being – most likely because of Labour’s insatiable desire to tell us how good its policies are at every possible turn – is that of counter-terrorism law. 

In 2006, you may recall, ministers overruled House of Lords objections to a new offence of ‘glorifying terrorism’. They also outlawed the ‘possession of extremist material’, attempting to make it a crime merely to think about criminal acts. Thus far, the Courts have thrown out any attempts to convict using this law. Can’t think why, can you? 

In the meantime, terrorists freely walk our streets each and every day of the week, scouting for a suitable iconic venue or area to blow up and knowing full well that they’re protected by the Human Rights Act if they’re caught when out on reconnaissance. It’s enough to make you sick to the stomach. 

Sir Igor Judges’ protest is probably the strongest indication yet of deepening unhappiness among lawyers and judges at Labour’s continuing flood of legislation and regulation. “In a rough and ready calculation,” he said at the dinner, “it seems to me that if every line of recent criminal justice legislation had been guaranteed by a payment to the Bank of England of £10,000 per line, the credit crisis would have been funded.” It’s a sobering thought. 

Lord Judge is also critical of the Prime Minister’s hurried attempts to clean up Parliament by way of the Parliamentary Standards Bill which, he believes, will elevate the power of the judiciary over that of politicians and throw the constitution into confusion. 

That Bill allows for the establishment of an independent regulator to supervise MPs in the wake of the scandal over their expenses, but Lord Judge said he is of the firm opinion that the regulator’s decisions would be open to challenge in the Courts. 

The opposite side of the legal coin

Caught in the headlights for the umpteenth time, Jack Straw countered by stating that judges are wholly wrong to complain about too much law being in place. “People find it easy to complain in general terms about the volume of criminal legislation, but when they are asked which of the new offences should be repealed they struggle to find an answer,” said Straw at the Lord Mayor’s event. 

An extremely worrying development of late is that “incompetent” prosecution lawyers are seemingly allowing criminals to escape proper punishment. A damning report produced by lawyers working for the independent Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has found that more than one third of prosecuting lawyers proved incompetent during trials, while a quarter of all prosecutors were deemed to be ‘lacklustre’. 

The report claims that trial prosecutors are guilty of “inappropriate acceptance of pleas of guilty to lesser offences, or pleas that reduce the gravity of the offence.” They also fail to spot gaps in evidence. It’s yet another matter for us all to worry about.

Ultimately, it’s long overdue that this Government stopped using knee-jerk legislation as some kind of thinly veiled proxy for real and concerted action. Brown and Co need to begin a process of stripping the Statute Book of some of the more ridiculous laws that have been concocted. 

Too many laws… and they’re not working 

So much for all of those laws, anyway. Not if the just-released British Crime Survey is anything to go by, because in parts it makes for horrifying reading. To these eyes, it looks very much as though a recession crime wave has set in, with a dramatic increase in theft, burglaries and fraud. 

Petty theft is up by a massive 25%, shoplifting by 10% (which must be a huge concern for High Street traders) and drug-related offences by 6%. The number of burglaries has reason by 1% to 284,000 recorded incidents (the first increase in six years). 

The British Crime Survey also reveals a staggering 313% increase in fraud by company directors (more of which anon, courtesy of the KPMG Fraud Barometer). Overall, fraud and forgery is up 5%, with frauds perpetrated by executives soaring from 198 cases to a massive 818. 

Fraudulent credit card transactions are also up 4% to 2.8 million. Indeed, the cost of card fraud in Britain appears to be spiralling out of control, forcing banks and credit card companies alike to develop a new generation of high-tech cards with constantly changing passwords. 

Card fraud cost the UK a massive £610 million last year – up by 43% in just two years – with more than three quarters of all offences now involving Internet, telephone or mail order shopping where Chip and PIN technology offers no protection. Does it offer any protection anyway? That’s the $64,000 question. 

Based on interviews with 40,000 householders, the British Crime Survey shows that the proportion of cardholders who are victims of fraudulent activities has risen from 3.7% to 6.4% in the past three years. Card Not Present fraud accounts for 77% of all incidents – that’s a total of almost 2.2 million episodes last year – and losses rose by 13% to a staggering £328 million. 

Card companies beginning to experiment 

Card issuers are now experimenting with high-tech plastic cards featuring a built-in miniature keypad and tiny display screen.

When shopping online, a customer has to enter their four-digit PIN into the card which then flashes up an eight-digit number. This is valid only for one transaction. The customer enters the number on the web site to prove they are the rightful owner of the card. 

Losses from counterfeit cards have risen by almost one fifth to £170 million, while card identity theft shot up by close on 40% to £47.4 million. The only category where fraud declined last year was in the use of lost or stolen cards in shops. Here, losses have fallen from £68 million to £54 million post the Chip and PIN boom. 

The UK Cards Association trade body knows that the figures cited are “not very good” – which is something of an understatement – but there’s an insistence that the statistics ought to be viewed in the context of a huge rise in online shopping. Between 2001 and 2008, Card Not Present fraud soared by 243%, but over the same period the total value of online shopping in the UK leapt from an estimated £6.6 billion to a whopping £41.2 billion. 

What’s being done about it? Both Visa and MasterCard have introduced a password protection system for online shopping. However, at present only a quarter of Britain’s estimated 145 million credit or debit cards are covered by the schemes, while at the same time a good many online retailers aren’t yet registered. 

Some more of the headline statistics 

The British Crime Survey suggests that murder cases have dropped by 17% to a 20-year low, with 135 fewer killings last year. As a whole, the Government informs, attempted murders were also down by 7%. However, attempted murders using a knife (more of which anon) are up 11% and, although violent crime is down by the stated 6%, instances of the rape of women have risen by 5%. 

There has been a 1% rise in the risk of any one of us becoming the victim of crime. Frighteningly, almost a quarter of the population – 23% – could be targeted by criminals at some point. 

“We are not complacent,” asserted Home Secretary Alan Johnson when quizzed earlier this week. You could have fooled me, Al. “As in previous years, we see changing patterns of crime and we know that during economic downturns certain crimes face upward pressure, which is why we’ve already taken action to tackle them head-on,” he said. Johnson is adamant the rise in burglaries will be met with “tough, targeted policing”. 

Will that mean more Boys in Blue on the beat, then? That’s what we need. Johnson must be made to listen to the views of police officers up and down the country. Their bureaucracy and paperwork must be cut so that they can get back onto the streets and into our communities where they belong and can be most effective. 

Still, it’s good to know that murders in England and Wales have fallen to their lowest level for 20 years. The number of killings tailed off by 17% to 648 in the year to the end of March.

Attempted murders also fell according to the annual crime figures for 2008-2009 which, overall, show that the level of crime remains “broadly stable” (whatever that means). 

Police-recorded crime has fallen by 5% to 4.7 million offences, with violence against the person involving an injury diminishing by 7% to 421,000. Incidents where no injury occurred fell by 5% to 480,000. All good to know, but hardly grounds for allowing us all to sleep safely at night. 

Businesses count the cost of rising criminality 

Worryingly, the latest British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) survey suggests that crime is now costing businesses £12.6 billion every year – one fifth more than it did four years ago. The increase, of course, coincides with the introduction of controversial on-the-spot fines for offences such as shoplifting, criminal damage and graffiti. 

The BCC believes the annual cost of the crimes equates to one-sixth of that for all offences committed in the UK. Businesses are hitting back, suggesting that the Home Office “just doesn’t care” about their plight. There is also an accusatory dig at the police for what businesses perceive to be “fundamental flaws” in the way crimes are handled. 

Business leaders are fuming that the British Crime Survey does not even gather statistics on crimes committed against their operations.

The BCC’s survey of 3,900 businesses found almost two-thirds had been victims of crime in the past year. One-in-five has been hit by vandalism and graffiti, with a similar proportion burgled. 

Come on Mr Johnson. Put what’s left of your money where your mouth is and do something about it.

The Culture of the Blade continues apace

You could have knocked me down with a feather when I discovered that “a high profile Government drive” to reduce knife crime on our streets has instead been met with an increase in the number of fatal stabbings occurring in our worst-affected inner city enclaves. 

Last July, amid much of the usual bluster and self-congratulation, (then) Home Secretary Jacqui Smith presided over the triumphal launch of the Tackling Knives Action Programme. The initiative was launched in ten police force areas, namely London, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, Thames Valley, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and the Capital of Kitsch that is Essex. 

With the Government having spent no less than £12 million of tax payers’ hard-earned money on the scheme, it now emerges that the number of people over the age of 20 subsequently murdered in these areas over the past nine months rose to 103. 

This Government of the Day failing to curtail knife killings yet again? Surely not? Of course, the Home Office is as bullish as ever. There are “beneficial results”, apparently, with a reported 16.6% fall in knife-related violence among the under-20s. Murders haven’t been reduced, though, and that’s the key point. 

As is the fashion these days, the usual police chiefs have been quick to stand by Labour, warning us all that changing attitudes towards knife crime is like “turning the proverbial oil tanker, and could take generations”. Does that mean we’re going to give up, then, and let all the metal-wielding yobs carve up whomever they choose at will? 

Not at the moment, it seems. The Tackling Knives Action Programme is to be expanded in the short term, with another £5 million chunk of funding being spread between 16 force areas. There’ll be a focus on attempting to reduce cases of serious violence among the 13-24-year-old age range. Will it make a difference, though? If we’re honest with ourselves the answer has to be: “Probably not”. 

Are we not surrendering to the thugs?

Programme leader Keith Bristow waxes lyrical about the “public angst” over knife crime being “understandable”. Too right it is, but to talk about having to eradicate this form of crime over generations is little short of a surrender. A passing the buck exercise, presumably designed to make doubly sure the mud no longer sticks. 

The figures are bad mainly because of our apparently spineless judiciary, although given what I said at the top of this discourse they do deserve some sympathy. That said, in the last year only one person has received the maximum possible sentence when put before a Court on a charge of knife-related crime. What kind of message does that send out? 

Not surprisingly, Government ministers are being accused of burying their collective heads in the sand on this issue, and of ‘massaging’ the figures. 

Official police figures record 38,082 serious violent or sexual knife offences over the past 12 months, equating to 104 every day. Those assaults include more than 16,700 robberies, 369 rapes and other sexual assaults, 252 killings and 1,549 threats to kill, all of them involving knives or other sharp objects of some kind. 

That figure compares with 25,013 offences recorded in 2007-2008. Doing the sums, this renders an apparent increase of more than 50%. 

However, because the Home Office definition of what qualifies as a serious offence was – some would say conveniently – changed this year, it’s now almost impossible to determine the genuine scale of the problem, and whether or not matters are actually worsening. 

Gerrymandering of the worst kind 

Massaging the figures on knife crime twice in two years – for that is what it looks like to many of us – is but an insult to the families of those who have been tragically murdered in knife attacks, and who are now campaigning vigorously for real action to eliminate knives from our streets. 

Despite a fall in robberies last year, to 16,701, the proportion involving knives actually increased by one percentage point. 

Respected criminologist Dr Marian Fitzgerald has stated: “I believe serious violence is continuing on its upward trend, but this year they [the Government] have deliberately presented the figures so you cannot tell. The statistics on knife crime give no evidence at all that Government initiatives are making any real difference.” 

According to the Home Office, changes to the definition of what constitutes a serious offence were made to provide a more detailed view of knife crimes. This year’s overall knife figures, we are told, cannot be compared like-for-like with last year’s. They include whole new categories like ABH, you see, which were not accounted for in 2007-2008. How convenient is that? 

For crime types which can be compared, like knife robberies and knife homicides, the Home Office cheerfully tells us overall totals are down, and that provisional hospital admissions data published only last month showed the number of teenagers being stabbed is falling. The national papers don’t see it that way, and neither do I. Something tells me there’s more spin there than even Graham Swann could muster. 

This Government’s motto is simple: “If you can’t beat the issue, fudge it.” Time for this lot to move over, methinks, and let someone else have a – decidedly more determined – go at eradicating the Culture of the Blade. 

Record number of reported frauds 

Appalling news this week also comes in the results of KPMG Forensic’s latest fraud report. Over 160 cases of serious fraud with charges in excess of £100,000 were put in front of UK Courts in the first half of 2009. That’s the highest number of reported cases in any given six-month period spanning the 21-year history of the company’s much-lauded Fraud Barometer. 

Those cases combined render a value of nigh on £640 million. If replicated between now and Christmas, that would also lead to the highest value of reported fraud in the Barometer’s history (a figure that currently stands at £1.2 billion, as recorded in 1995). 

Professional gangs have been the most active perpetrators of fraud, it seems, with 70 cases worth a tidy £450 million. The main victims? Investors, who suffered to the tune of £320 million. Much of this stemmed from a £200 million investment fraud case involving the attempted fraudulent sale of The Ritz Hotel in London. 

Company managers were also active perpetrators, being responsible for £150 million worth of fraud against their own employers in 32 separate cases. The Government apparently suffered £150 million of fraud, mostly in the form of tax and duty evasion and fraudulent benefit claims. One wonders why KPMG Forensic doesn’t mention MPs’ expenses in the same breath? 

Not surprisingly, the prime victim has been the financial sector. Over a quarter of all cases were planned against financial institutions, with a combined value of £111 million. Staggering sums of money, aren’t they? 

Property has also been at the heart of much fraud. In addition to The Ritz Hotel, a substantial buy-to-let fraud in the North East conned as many as 2,000 investors to the tune of £80 million. The investments were put behind properties that, more often than not, turned out to be derelict shells. For Spain read Newcastle. 

Mortgage fraud has also continued its gradual but steady rise, either perpetrated by individual customers or organised gangs of professional villains. According to KPMG, there were 18 cases from January through to June, with a combined value of £24 million. That needs to be set against 25 cases worth £36 million in the whole of 2008. Who would bet against the continuing rise of mortgage frauds as the recession plays out? 

Bad, yes, but worse is still to come

Some of the stories surrounding managerial fraud are beautiful in their simplicity. KPMG tells of the managing director of a Hartlepool-based food product company who siphoned some £2.5 million from company accounts across a 12-year period. 

How about the charity finance manager in Manchester who paid herself nearly £500,000 over the course of a decade by creating fictitious invoices and processing bogus payments? Choice. 

The Star Prize, though, goes to a construction company secretary on Merseyside who claimed she had cancer so that she could take compassionate leave from work – during which time she treated herself to plastic surgery and holidays with a soupcon of the £600,000 stolen from the company (and a previous employer) by paying wages into her own account. Delicious, isn’t it? 

The figures quoted by KPMG are bad, but worse is yet to come. It will be several years before the full impact of the recession feeds through into the fraud statistics. Hard times mean that more and more people are driven towards fraud due to personal pressures, while more and more investors are willing to believe in cooked-up investment schemes not worth the paper they’re drafted on. 

Security and business continuity professionals must guard against becoming desensitised to the seriousness of commercial fraud. Even the smaller cases can cause extreme stress and suffering for those on the receiving end. Not to mention the creation of major reputational and financial difficulties for companies as a whole. 

Put simply, security must always begin at home for every organisation, irrespective of its size or that part of the security business sector within which it operates. 

Taking in the Newsnight experience

I don’t often watch Newsnight. Surprising, really, given that I’m a big fan of Jeremy Paxman’s journalistic abilities. I do so admire the way ‘Paxo’ legitimately savages some of our parasitic politicians on screen with the same vigour that Richard Littlejohn brilliantly tears them to shreds in print. No matter. By half-past ten at night I’ve usually seen all the news I want to see, Thank You very much. 

This week, however, it was a different story – at least on Monday night, anyway. At around 8.00 pm, Paul Mackie – the compliance director at CameraWatch – sent me a text tipping me the wink that Newsnight (this time around fronted by the rather dour Kirsty Walk) would be featuring CCTV. As it turned out, I missed the live broadcast and subsequently tuned into iPlayer on Tuesday morning. 

The ten-minute report – left until the last ten minutes of the programme, by the way – was presented by Michael Buchanan… but not before Walk had introduced him through a fake CCTV ‘fuzz’ complete with background PTZ noises as if she herself were being caught on camera. 

“Is CCTV any use at all?” pondered Walk. Now there’s a question that’s never been asked. Whatever happened to cutting-edge journalism on the BBC? What on Earth was I about to watch? 

Not holding out much hope, I gave Buchanan the benefit of the doubt. He kicked off by telling us viewers that there’s now one public space surveillance camera for every 14 residents in the UK. He did so from a vantage point high in the Shetland Islands where, apparently, there are “more birds than bodies” these days. “Here, Puffin watching is rapidly being overtaken by people watching”. One wondered at that point if Buchanan were touting for a job on The Sun’s Subs Desk. 

100-plus cameras now cover the Shetlands and, during Buchanan’s report, another 14 were hastily being installed at the cool cost to the Council of £200,000, mainly in direct response to police and public pressure to control drunken rampages after hours. 

So it’s true, then. There are now cameras everywhere. Come on Martin, tell us something we didn’t already know.

Debunking an old myth?

In the London Borough of Wandsworth, there are no less than 1,113 cameras, to be precise. More than are owned and operated by Dublin City Council and the Lord Overseers in Johannesburg, Boston and Sydney combined. Don’t forget that Wandsworth contains the two streets that provided the famous “4.2 million cameras in the UK” statistic we’ve come to know and doubt (or loathe, depending on your liking or distaste for Big Brother). 

Interestingly, Simon Harris of IMS Research was next up for interview. Simon writes regularly for SMT Online, and sends us plenty of market research reports. Based on sales, the factoring-in of replacement rates, a review of the marketplace and tracing the CCTV industry back to the 70s, he suggests that there’s an installed base of 3.2 million cameras in the UK. An interesting conclusion. 

Let’s not get bogged down in figures, though. The meat and drink of Buchanan’s quest to answer Walk’s question centred on an interview with detective chief inspector Mick Neville, he of the Metropolitan Police Service and never one to pull any punches when a discussion on CCTV is energised. 

“There are lots of elements that make CCTV work,” opined Neville. “All of those elements, like proper training, need to be in place at the same time. In my experience, there are too many police forces that don’t manage CCTV properly. We have enough cameras now of good quality. Let’s not become mired in the detail, talking about HD and megapixel. Instead, let’s use whatever development money there is to train people in the correct deployment and use of CCTV.” 

Convictions falling over in Court

For me, that sums the situation up to a tee. Not so long ago, I gave a speech at the aforementioned CameraWatch’s most recent Forum, held at Canary Wharf. I didn’t pull any punches. We all know that (the majority of) CCTV systems are superb, and yet convictions are falling over in Court on a continual and tiresome basis. Isn’t it about time we did something to halt this parlous situation? 

Representing the Association of Chief Police Officers, Graeme Gerrard brought Buchanan’s report to a close by alluding to “countless cases where CCTV has been critical”. Indeed, Buchanan himself gilded the lily by reference to the tragic case of James Bulger. “If you can put a value on that then I can tell you how effective CCTV really is,” urged Gerrard. 

This question is going to keep on rearing it’s ugly – but necessary – head time and time again. One day, Joe Public will wake up, smell the coffee and demand a definitive answer. 

Although Mr Darling has led us all to believe that the public purse has an elasticated waist, it does not. Continually throwing money at more and more surveillance installations isn’t the answer. Rather, we need to manage what cameras we already have, and manage them properly. 

Not just for the sake of the insurers, either, but to make certain – with the assistance of a decent judiciary – that the criminals who sully our streets are locked away for good. 

What to do in the downturn?

Only yesterday, an extremely interesting e-mail flashed up in my Inbox. “Mandelson urged to stimulate innovation rather than bail out dying industries” was the subject line. “Mandelson does something useful for once” is the headline most of us wish to see, but there’s more chance of Kevin Pietersen playing in another Ashes battle this summer than that ever happening. 

The former headline is the central finding of what’s described as a “hard-hitting report” courtesy of Professor Robert Blackburn, who resides in an academic tower at Kingston University in that establishment’s Faculty of Business and Law. 

A report commissioned by Mandelson’s own Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, in fact, in a bid to help firms of all shapes and sizes deal with the economic trauma wrought by Gordon Brown and his cronies in the banking world. Rich, isn’t it? In more ways than one. 

A team led by Blackburn has analysed academic studies, news articles and business publications talking about the credit crunch, and consulted a specially-convened Think Tank comprising nine of the UK’s most eminent business gurus – among them Professor Richard Whittington of Oxford’s Said Business School and Professor Charles Baden-Fuller, who works for the City University’s Cass Business School. 

Blackburn’s team tells us that the recession is “unique and unpredictable”. Unique it most certainly is. Unprecedented, even, but unpredictable? I’m afraid that’s a ludicrous suggestion. Brown and Co knew this was coming a long time ago, but chose to ignore the financial juggernaut hurtling towards them until it was far, far too late to construct any kind of meaningful blockade. 

There’s no doubt, as Blackburn states in his report ‘Business Strategies and Performance During Difficult Economic Times’, that a new economic order is bubbling under the surface. The recession is overturning and, in some cases, revolutionising current business models to create threats and realise opportunities. Certainly, if you speak to most security company owners then ‘Business As Usual’ hasn’t been any kind of option of late. 

Woe betide the corporate anorexics

For its part, the Think Tank recommends that “firms must innovate and explore new ideas, as well as cut costs” if they are to have any chance of surviving and then growing during this recession. There’s certainly a sound logic in suggesting that companies focused only on cutting costs – nicely dubbed “the corporate anorexics” – might survive the recession in spite of forcing people to work harder as opposed to more efficiently, but then fail in an upturn simply because they have insufficient resources. 

Come on Mandelson. Do something. Assist businesses in the security sector and elsewhere by offering financial inducements for innovative projects based on altruistic and new ideas and ways of working. Finance – or what’s left of it – must be regarded as having some form of leverage, or at least ought to generate a burst of new thinking and activities rather than being chucked down the drain as a subsidy for supporting “the way it has always been done”. 

Once they’ve finished claiming for all those Corby trouser presses and moat cleaning episodes, it wouldn’t take much effort for ministers to actively promote examples of companies that have grown stronger in previous recessions – there are many of them in the security sector – and celebrate the importance of entrepreneurs. Again, there are plenty of that ilk in our world. 

Why can we not set aside monies for an Innovation Laboratory where security companies might experiment on ideas outside of their conventional business long before they’re enticed along the road of bundled services by the lure of extra revenue, but wherein security becomes a bit-part player enveloped in a swathe of facilities management fog? 

What we do urgently need is a reform of the Bankruptcy Laws. At present, these simply exist to encourage some businesses to wind up of their own volition such that they might avoid the ever-increasing costs of bankruptcy proceedings in Court. 

Professor Blackburn’s report – which he co-authored with Kingston University colleagues Professor David Smallbone and Dr John Kitching, as well as Sarah Dickson from the University of Bath – concludes: “The key to successful Government intervention does not lie in persisting with business models that were appropriate in the past, or which are currently under threat. Instead, successful intervention lies in breaking the frame and reinventing not just the organisation, but also the broader socio-economic political system within which business organisations operate.” 

Now that’s what I call commercial reality. 

Until next time.

SMT Online Editor’s View: Play Your Cards Wrong

The disaster that has been the national ID card scheme, a fairly damning report on the state of our Critical National Infrastructure security, chief constables’ pay and 7/7 remembered. Brian Sims tackles the issues that matter.

Not long after the ghostly and ghastly dust clouds created by the collapsed Twin Towers had begun to dissipate from New York’s skyline, (then) Home Secretary David Blunkett responded by waxing lyrical about Plastic (sorry, Police) Community Support Officers and the desperate need for compulsory ID cards in the UK.

The Great British Populace was fed the line that such a scheme would be a magnificent panacea for combating terrorism, fighting organised crime, preventing illegal immigration and putting a stop to identity fraud.

The national ID card would do everything bar make the tea, or at least that’s what Joe Public was led to believe.

A draft Bill duly saw the light of day three years later, and became the Law of the Land in 2006 in the shape of the ID Card Act. At the time, the basic aim was to roll-out the cards for Britons alongside new biometrics-based passports.

Once enough of us – something in the region of 80 per cent of all Brits, actually – had the cards, new laws would then be brought forward to make them compulsory.

Winding the clock forward to today, and with millions upon millions of pounds of the tax payers’ money already flushed down the drain, reality has finally dawned for the Government that the whole thing is – and always was, if Brown and Co are honest with themselves – a complete and utter waste of time and finance.

Embarrassing and significant about-turn

Only a few days ago, current Home Secretary Alan Johnson was forced into an embarrassing and significant climbdown.

The cards will now only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis (although they’ll continue to be compulsory for all those foreign nationals wishing to remain resident here for the longer term).

No Britons will ever be forced to have one. It follows, then, that if no-one actually wants one this surely paves the way for scrapping the idea in its entirety?

What a great start to smooth-talker Al’s tenure in the hot(est) seat. In his first major policy statement, Johnson freely admitted that the Government had “exaggerated” the benefits any such card would have in fighting the terrorist threat. This Government not telling We The People the truth? Shock. Horror. Whatever next?

Now, the best riposte Johnson can offer to detractors is that the cards would assist youngsters to buy drinks in their local bars and clubs. Marvellous.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s hardly a good enough argument to continue frittering away an estimated £500 million every year from a non-cash rich Home Office budget in setting up the framework to deliver whatever sort of scheme the Government still has in mind to foist upon certain parties.

Leaving to one side the fact that any connection – however slight – with teenagers and alcohol is abhorrent given the binge drinking culture Labour has blindly nurtured, let’s not forget that this cost would rise far, far higher should many more clients in the public sector beyond the airport ‘guinea pigs’ (more of whom anon) have to invest in the fingerprint readers that would be needed.

A panacea to combat terrorism… or maybe not

The notion that any national ID card would thwart the extremists in our midst – and, more specifically, their continuing attempts to blow us all sky high – was firmly kicked into touch in mid-June, when retired legal specialist and highly respected former Judge Lord Steyn delivered the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture.

Not without foundation, his Lordship accused the Home Office of introducing this whole scheme by stealth, under a false premise and with the aid of clever conditioning such that public opinion would soften towards it.

“There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest these cards would protect us against terrorism,” urged Lord Steyn. “It’s nothing but an unjustified invasion of civil liberties.”

On that note, in a separate speech delivered at the recent Information Assurance for the Public Sector Conference (also held in central London), the impressively incisive shadow security minister Baroness Neville-Jones opined: “The individual is the rightful owner of personal information. The State is merely a possessor of that information, and should behave as its responsible custodian. We need to roll back the advance of Big Brother, and restore the fundamental rights of our citizens.”

Too damn true. Restoring privacy today must beget a clear statement on the part of those who have custody of our personal information.

A clear statement outlining their purpose in retaining this information. A statement emboldening their commitment to its proper management. In other words, we need a fundamental review to be conducted of any centralised Government databases.

To be honest, I don’t believe that many people objected to the ideas that lay behind the national ID card. After all, we each carry around umpteen cards in our wallets to prove our right to drive, withdraw cash and gain Nectar points at Sainsbury’s, so what difference does one more make?

In many ways the ID card is almost a Badge of Honour, a symbol of national pride (if such a thing is allowed in this country these days) and probity.

Where the problem lies is in what (potentially, at least) would or could happen to the data, and for what purposes might it be used? As I’ve said many times before in my Editor’s View, this lot’s track record of holding on to sensitive information isn’t the best, is it?

My opinions are endorsed by John Barker, the general manager at TSSI Systems. “The scheme may never have worked in the first place, as the correct security measures were not in place,” Barker told me.

“Biometrics alone are simply not enough. A strong verification technology needs to be applied. In order for an ID card scheme to work, the data has to be stored as an algorithmic encryption, which makes it impossible for even the most sophisticated of fraudsters to decipher.”

The storage of the information collected also needs to be carefully structured. The biometric data must be held separately from other personal data. This makes it much harder for anyone to obtain enough personal details to steal an identity or clone a card.

Leaving the system open on a voluntary basis is laughable. “Who in their right mind would voluntarily hand over biometric information to a scheme that is fundamentally flawed?” said Barker. I think we all know the answer to that question.

His Lordship speaks for the majority

Anyway, I digress. With a swift boot to the Home Office’s nether regions, Lord Steyn also added: “By and large, the commitment of the British people to European constitutional principles and ideals does not require us to adopt an ID card system. In my view, the scheme isn’t at all necessary. No further money ought to be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned altogether.” I suspect Lord Steyn speaks for the majority, don’t you?

The inaugural efforts at imposing compulsory ID cards on us Brits, you may recall, emerged in the shape of a pilot scheme involving airside operatives at UK airports serving Manchester and London. That scheme will now be voluntary.

A mandatory situation could have placed at risk the employment of those who refused to comply, while at the same time deterring new joiners. That’s what TUC general secretary Brendan Barber believes, anyway, and to an extent he has a point.

Of course, a scheme allowing Britons to buy one of the £30 cards is soon to be up-and-running in the Greater Manchester area. Only problem is that, to date, just 3,500 locals have expressed an interest in actually owning one.

Johnson – who insists he’s still an “instinctive supporter” of ID cards – has now suggested that a similar opportunity will be offered to residents right across the North West from early next year. Clutching at straws, anyone?

It was always going to be the case that a further vote in Parliament would have been necessary for any compulsory scheme to materialise. Any of you who have read the aforementioned ID Card Act will know this to be the case.

What’s still going to happen next year is that, when British nationals trade-in their expired Passports for an all-singing, all-dancing, biometrics-based ‘special’, their details will be automatically enrolled on the National Identity Register. You can only avoid being on the database if you decide travelling isn’t for you.

National Identity Register continues to grow

Back in April, U-Turn Blunkett signalled that such mandatory biometric passports could replace the ID card altogether. “Most people already have a passport,” he now suggests, “but they might want something more convenient to carry around with them. They may be able to have a piece of plastic for an extra cost.”

The fact of the matter is that, as the National Identity Register continues to grow, then the ID scheme remains intact. From next year, anyone requiring a new passport will have their fingerprints logged and these, along with other details, will be entered on the database.

The card then becomes irrelevant, as someone’s ID may be corroborated using a fingerprint reader linked to said database.

It follows, then, that the only way this could be considered a voluntary sign-up is if it were possible for individuals to opt-out of being listed on the Register/database when they renew their passport. The Home Secretary is – just this once – expressly clear that any opt-out will not be allowed to happen.

Within the next few weeks, in fact, secondary legislation will be laid before the House that makes it an offence – punishable by a not insubstantial £1,000 fine – for anyone to fail in notifying the Identity and Passport Service of any change in address subsequent to them being enrolled on the database.

Before the Tories begin laughing in their thousands – and earmark the billions saved by dint of them scrapping the national ID card scheme in favour of delivering more prison spaces should they come to power – they’ll need to think again.

The majority of the scheme – and the profligate spending associated with it – will still have to go ahead for reasons (ie the biometric passport link) already stated.

Dropping the ID cards themselves would save ‘only’ an estimated £1.1 billion. Contracts awarded in April mean that any later abandonment of the scheme would burden the tax payer with a further £40 million debt.

Cynics would say that Gordon Brown’s shambolic crew is deliberately making it as expensive as possible for any future Conservative or Liberal Democrat administration to scrap the ID cards.

Of course, they’ve also likely shifted Labour’s 2011 Tax Bombshell on to Conservative Central Office as well. They’re not stupid. Well, not for 10 per cent of the time.

I would say that, at a juncture when the public purse is under gargantuan pressure the like of which it has not seen for generations, it’s nothing short of outrageous for Labour ministers to employ a ‘poison pill’ strategy against their opponents.

Hopefully, the public will see through the latest in a long line of dirty tricks and do something about it at the ballot box (at a time to suit Gordon Brown, of course).

Little other than a partial retreat

Unwittingly or otherwise, Alan Johnson has signalled the death of Labour’s ID card folly. One of the fundamental design flaws is that the system has to be compulsory. If it isn’t, as is now the case, then how on earth can any public servant – be they a sworn police officer, immigration official or member of the welfare service – demand to see anyone’s card on the spot? They cannot.

The about-turn is yet further proof of an administration in total and utter disarray. The Home Secretary knows that millions have been wasted on this fanciful idea. Deep down, the smart money would suggest he’d rather scrap ID cards altogether, but Gordon will not let go of Son of Blunkett.

What we end up with, as always, is a half-way house. A fudge of the most absurd proportions. Ultimately, we’re now witnessing nothing other than a partial retreat.

Either way, the scheme is still expected to cost something in the region of £4.9 billion across the next decade. It’s little short of preposterous, particularly given the scenario being played out in The City just now.

The majority of that loot will be spent on the biometric passports. That’s OK in the grand scheme of things, but what we’re talking about now is an initiative so voluntary that only mandarins in the Home Office with one eye on climbing the greasy, sleazy pole of promotion will have such a card in their possession. What’s the point in it all?

The rich irony of the situation is that Blunkett, the original leader of the Pro-ID Card Lobby, is now vehemently opposed to the idea. At that point, it’s probably wise for us to begin calling the national ID card an abandoned orphan.

As the wise Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Chris Huhne astutely summarises: “Only the most profligate of Governments would lavish billions of pounds on this programme in the midst of the deepest recession, and at a time when tough choices surrounding public spending have to be made.”

Passports are no face-saver

The passport element is no real face-saver, either. Our passports were going to become biometric at some point in time anyway. Not even this mob could turn around and tell us all with a straight face that we have to pay for a new passport whether or not we need one.

Forthwith, the Government must stop haemorrhaging tax payers’ money at the peril of their privacy and scrap this scheme. Not just bits of it. All of it.

A few political ‘sacred cows’ will have to slide from Gordon Brown’s grasp if he’s to have any chance of reducing our burgeoning public debt mountain, and the national ID card scheme must be one of them.

This Government would do well to remember that the British State belongs to the British people. It is not the other way around, and what’s more it never will be (but if such a Dark Day should ever come to pass, I don’t mind turning the lights out when I’m the last to leave once I’ve made doubly sure all of you intelligent folk have exited in a safe and orderly manner).

Having denied our fine band of OAPs any chance of a decent life these days, not to say shunning them completely, the Government is still waffling on about offering the ID cards for free to all those aged over 75. I’ll bet that’ll win Labour the blue rinse vote. Not.

However Brown’s spin machine decides to play the national ID card, overly large ears, four tree trunk-like legs and a ski-slope snout still makes for the Elephant in the Room.

This is one White Elephant that, undoubtedly, would be every bit as costly to our privacy and racial equality as it would our wallets and purses. Put simply, it’s a busted flush. Time to move on, Gordon.

The (Parlous?) State of the Nation

Remaining with the national security theme for a moment, on Monday of this week Mark Whyte – whom many of you will know as the popular and innovative director of security consulting and explosion effects at TPS – tipped me the wink that the full report entitled The State of the Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure has just been published by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

I knew of the 16-page missive (which makes for very interesting reading, by the way) as it was previewed at the RUSI Critical National Infrastructure Conference back in May.

I also know of the importance of the backbone supporting this great nation of ours, and why it must be defended and protected to the hilt.

Our infrastructure – energy sources, transport networks and communication systems included – is vital. Arguably, it’s also now under a greater threat than at any time in history.

To its great credit, the ICE conducted a full-scale inquiry into the defence of the UK’s critical infrastructure.

In the course of those investigations, oral and written evidence was gathered from over 70 major infrastructure asset owners, operators, agencies, service providers and civil engineering consultants and contractors.

Evidence submitted allowed the Institution to produce an excellent, totally independent assessment of how effectively we’re ensuring the resilience of our infrastructure. Overall, it must be said that the findings couldn’t be described as pretty.

Work remains piecemeal, more must be done

Alan Stilwell of MerseyTravel (chairman of the ICE Steering Group and chief author of the report) states: “We should be under no illusions. There are dangerous weaknesses in our Critical National Infrastructure and utilities networks that must be addressed.

“Well-defended critical infrastructures are central to the security and stability of the nation. We either work now to fortify our networks or pay the economic, social and environmental price in the future.”

The main threats to our Critical National Infrastructure are, of course, systems failure, climatic change and acts of terrorism.

The Government has indeed taken some steps towards reducing the risks to infrastructure, for example by dint of its efforts to counter terrorism (CONTEST2) and the creation of a national body equipped to deal with natural hazards (aptly dubbed The Natural Hazards Team).

That said, work remains piecemeal. Put simply, we need to do more. The network must be treated as a whole, necessarily requiring an overview function that fully recognises a truism: that the functionality of one asset is wholly dependent on others.

Quite rightly, the ICE states that we must close the gap in our infrastructure defence system. How we do that in the real world is the $64,000 question.

First off, the Institution states we must establish a new, single point of authority for infrastructure resilience to co-ordinate the good work of the many and varied agencies responsible for defending our Critical National Infrastructure against all threats. More of this anon.

In addition, the newly-assembled Natural Hazards Team must be afforded the power to provide strong leadership to asset owners, and ensure that legislation is properly and rigidly enforced. I would suggest penalties must be added for demonstrable non-compliance.

The ICE also states that the Government ought to revisit the remit for sector Regulators such as Ofgem (electricity and gas) and Ofwat (sewerage), addressing asset resilience as well as consumer interests while at the same time empowering them to make absolutely certain asset owners build-in reserve capacity in readiness for any type of emergency scenario.

Last – but by no means least – the Government must ensure that, when working in unison, the new Planning Act 2008 and the Infrastructure Planning Commission effectively and efficiently reform the planning system for major infrastructures.

Single point of authority for infrastructure resilience

The recommendation that the Government set up a single point of authority is a sound one on so many levels. We can then achieve resilience by encouraging reserve capacity and connectivity, all the while actively supporting local authorities in implementing the necessary resilience guidelines.

A fundamental requirement is to ensure that there’s sufficient technical engineering expertise in Government to enable the stoic defence of critical infrastructures. Speaking of Government, all elected officials must liaise to beget an apolitical approach to resilience. In this instance, party colours have to be left at the door.

There’s a defined need to improve Government accounting such that critical infrastructure liabilities might be effectively managed. The cost of political failure has to be increased. Of that there is no doubt here. No grey area whatsoever.

Following on from that, we must improve co-operation and information sharing between national, regional and local authorities, and seek to enhance co-ordination with the emergency services.

Interestingly, just a few days after the report first saw light of day, Gordon Brown said he would now be looking to establish an “advisory body that will identify the country’s infrastructure needs for the next 50 years”. Far be it from me to say this is something of a coincidence when such a body hasn’t even been on the radar.

The plans are set out in a policy document entitled Building Britain’s Future – “With what, Gordon, because all the money’s gone, mate?” – which is already being touted as Labour’s General Election Manifesto (or at the very least a rough version of it).

Haven’t we seen all this before, though?

The document includes many reissued proposals announced in Chancellor Darling’s last figure massage (ie Budget), among them carbon emissions cuts and a new funding mechanism for four carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.

Appropriately enough, the new body will operate under the name of Infrastructure UK, and is intended to complement the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (which itself will centralise planning for what Brown refers to as “nationally significant” infrastructure projects).

The body’s development will be led by recently-appointed trade, investment and business minister Lord Davies of Abersoch, whose portfolio falls within the remit of the overarching Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Full details concerning Infrastructure UK will be announced – and a chairman appointed – in time for the pre-Budget report during November.

Those details are awaited with some eagerness, because the consequences of any failure to ‘get it right’ don’t bear thinking about. Remember the old adage: The terrorists only need to succeed once. The forces of security must succeed EVERY time.

Continuation of the rewards for failure

At the tail end of June, it was revealed that former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was paid the ‘small’ sum of £580,000 during his final eight months in office.

On top of his pay-off, the 56-year-old Teflon Don stands to collect a very tidy pension pot next February of around £3.5 million.

For the non-mathematicians among you, that works out at a cool £160,000 a year. Not quite in the Ronaldo bracket, then, but it means there’ll not be any need for visits to Aldi or Lidl in the near future.

Let us all remember that Sir Ian Blair left the Met riven by divisive legal claims, internal disputes and general discontent. The air still hangs heavy in New Scotland Yard to this day.

In so many peoples’ eyes he did such a very bad job, and eventually had to be forced out of office by Boris Johnson. Whatever you think of him, the tousle-haired Mayor of London deserves a medal for the part he played in loosening the glue that bound Sir Ian to his post.

Of course it’s outrageous that this kind of money is being given almost as a reward for failure – notwithstanding the fact that Sir Ian did serve 30 years in London and the Thames Valley, so we cannot be 100 per cent uncharitable – but equally outrageous is the news this week that not one but many of our top cops are on ‘super perks’.

Take Sean Price, for example. Mr Price is the chief constable of Cleveland Police. According to Police Review’s latest survey, Price’s alleged basic salary sits at a pleasant £125,000 per annum.

On top of that, he’s paid a reported £50,000 ‘retention package’ and an ‘honorariam’ of £24,000. The latter is a bonus for cutting crime in the region by a recorded 17 per cent.

Since when have we paid chief officers extra for doing what they should be doing anyway as the main part of their job? This beggars belief, it really does.

Within Price’s overall salary of £200,000 per annum is, apparently, a £32,000 car allowance, £1,000 towards private medical care and – wait for it – a cool £4,000 each year towards private school fees for his kids.

Why should tax payers foot the bill for a copper to send his offspring to a better school when many of them are struggling just to keep a roof over their head? In my opinion that’s disgraceful.

It’s also a remuneration package with off-book payments that puts Price ahead of police chiefs governing much larger remits. How can that possibly be justified?

Thinking outside of the (cash) box

Then there’s Ian McPherson. The chief constable of Norfolk Police has allegedly been awarded a tidy bonus package in the region of £70,000 (including the payment of Stamp Duty so as to encourage him to leave his previous post in North Yorkshire). He now earns a paltry – in comparison to Price, anyway – £129,000 each year.

Stephen Bett, who proudly sits as chairman of the Norfolk Police Authority – genuinely believes these rewards are value for money for Joe Tax Payer. Apparently, they encourage chief officers who “think outside of the box”.

What? I’ve never heard such garbage in all my life. A genuine copper should be in it for the public good, not their own self-aggrandisement and bank balance. They are, after all, a servant of that public and paid for by that public.

If chief constables aren’t good enough to think outside of Bett’s imaginary box then they shouldn’t be in post in the first place.

The Police Review survey also highlights other incentives for senior officers under these private deals, among them home security – you’d think they’d know how to crack that nut for themselves, wouldn’t you? – satellite television and ‘lifestyle coaching’. The latter certainly did Sir Ian Blair the world of good. In his dreams.

ACPO president Sir Ken Jones is adamant that, if people feel chief constables’ pay scales need to change, then it should be a case of open book accounting. Of course it should.

On a disturbing level, these payments are actively locking individuals into certain forces. They’re akin to the golden handshake, promoting avarice but at the same time inhibiting movement and, therefore, force development. They’re also extremely distasteful to the average member of the public.

Have we really reached the stage where commitment to the chief constable role is defined by the size of the payslip rather than any deep desire to protect members of the general public from harm? That’s how it’s beginning to look for many of us.

7/7: The Miracle of Carriage 346

Late on Saturday night, I was flicking through the myriad channels on the TV when I stumbled upon an excellent but at the same time harrowing and extremely moving More4 documentary entitled 7/7: The Miracle of Carriage 346.

Commuters like myself will never, ever forget that day in 2005 when zealots descended on the Capital and determinedly attacked its creaking transport system with no regard for life. This film followed the passengers of one of the tube trains who happened to be in the same carriage as a suicide bomber.

Watching the programme, which recalled how the emergency services took almost an hour to reach the victims secreted in the deep Piccadilly Line tunnel, it was interesting – and liberating – to note how compassion and dogged courage swiftly replaced London commuters’ usual reserve and stand-offish behaviour.

Gill Hicks, who lost both of her legs, also resultantly lost three quarters of her blood. Her heart stopped beating twice, but “an inner voice” made her fight for life and return home to the man whom she was about to marry. What a brave, brave woman.

On Tuesday, relatives of the 52 victims of 7/7 gathered in Hyde Park where a £1 million monument – consisting of 52 stainless steel columns echoing the ‘steely determination of Londoners’ – was unveiled by His Royal Highness Prince Charles.

Host Sir Trevor McDonald slowly read out the name of each victim before telling their loved ones: “We will remember them all”. Indeed we will. Each year and forever.

The best way of honouring their memory is to permanently rid the streets of those who would do us harm. The time for allowing the guilty to hide behind the Human Rights Act and observing politically correct niceties for fear of offence is well and truly over.

Until next time.