Those specific roles that usually fall into the category of frontline duties do not usually include those of the static security officer, but the mobile officer – as evidenced by the recent on-site killing of Securitas officer Jasvinder Bohgan ('A guard's right to bear arms', SMT, October 2001, p17). Initially, the police tasked with investigating Jasvinder's death suspected that he might have been bludgeoned to death with his own electronic clocking device, which resembled a small baton and was reported missing. The industry awaits the investigation and trial results with interest.
Although security officers in parts of mainland Europe and America already carry weapons, I see no obvious advantage in UK officers being allowed to follow in their footsteps – for the time being, at least.
Covering up the mistakes
If I might be controversial for a moment, let's look at our own police force with something of a critical eye. In recent years, how many times have you read a report in the newspapers or seen pictorial evidence on TV concerning police officers becoming 'overly enthusiastic' with their batons when making an arrest? Or, perhaps, misusing firearms in situations that were wholly inappropriate?
Does this not imply that, even with sufficient training, mistakes will occur? What explanation would a security company offer to its client if an over-zealous or nervous guard used pepper spray on an engineer who had returned to site unannounced late at night merely to check on the status of the main computer suite?
The logistics and costs involved in training staff in the proficient use of batons, CS gas or pepper spray would be immense. Who would pick up the tab, and to whose standards would the guards actually be trained?
It's widely accepted that violence at work is the fastest growing category of violent crime in this country, and has for some time been outpacing the general rise in crime on home shores. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) definition of work-related violence is: "Any incident in which an employee is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work". This interpretation reflects the fact that workplace 'violence' is not restricted to acts of aggression that may result in physical harm, but also incorporates behaviour – including the use of gestures and language – that may cause an employee to become afraid, or feel threatened or abused.
According to HSE reports covering the year 2000, attacks perpetrated by members of the public against employees in the security (or 'protective') sector were so extensive that one in every four employees was effectively subject to attack. However, many of those working in the industry believe that this figure grossly under-represents the true scale of the problem.
The likelihood of physical confrontation increases wherever the nature of the work entails controlling and/or exercising authority over others, interviewing in dispute situations or protecting against/preventing crime.
Certain roles in the security sector, then, bring with them a real risk of meeting 'high energy' conflict.
Employers' obligations to officers
Statistics confirm that the precautionary measures being relied upon by many security companies to protect their staff from violent attack are both largely ineffective and, at the same time, far from ideal.
Violence at work is the fastest growing category of violent crime in this country. The logistics and costs involved in training security officers in the proficient use of batons, CS gas or pepper spray would be immense. Who would pick up the tab, and to w
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act of 1974 states that: "Employers have an obligation to do everything – as far as is reasonably practicable – to eradicate or minimise the risk of harm to health from all hazards (including violence)". Like all of us I sympathise with the friends and relatives of Jasvinder Bohgan. I would also ask a salient question, though. Had this guard been carrying some form of self-defence, would the end result of the attack have been any different? Probably not.
The question that I'd really like to pose to Security Management Today's readers is quite simple. What type of personal safety training had this officer received?
Wherever a requirement for training is identified, the standard of that training must be commensurate with the level of risk being faced. What senior security company executives need to consider is this: could they rely on their officers to testify that all "reasonable" and "practicable" steps had been taken to protect them from violence, or indeed their customers and their customers' visitors?
If they can't be certain of a positive response then they and their organisation are vulnerable.
Making a claim for negligence
The litigious 'sue culture' is ever-present, with endless advertisements from companies including Claims Direct encouraging individuals who have been injured at work to take out a claim of negligence against their former or current employers.
Surely the time has never been more ripe for providers of face-to-face customer services personnel (ie security officers) to evaluate the risks which their employees take on a daily basis, and examine what (if any) training has been provided to prevent them from becoming yet another victim of mindless violence?
The providers of manned security services can no longer afford to ignore the facts and bury their collective heads in the sand.
Officers need to be trained to identify the traits of an aggressive person – the so-called warning and danger signs – and how to react accordingly with a view to preventing serious injury. They should also be taught dignified control and restraint techniques to subdue aggressors in a kind and caring manner.
Permitting security officers to arm themselves with knowledge rather than weapons to combat the increasing threats they face is the way forward.
Source
SMT
Postscript
Ian Bartrop MICM is training manager at aXess Training