The 2012 Games are private security’s greatest opportunity, writes Abbey Petkar, managing director of London-based guarding company Magenta Security.
In two years it will all be over. London will have hosted the world’s largest sporting event and the legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games will start to become apparent. Since the date London decided to bid for the games, the words ‘legacy’ and ‘sustainable’ have been at the heart of every announcement and every plan. The question that concerns me though is: where does the security industry fit in the scheme of things? What will be our legacy?
Security in generic terms is not just protecting citizens from lethal and highly untoward incidents like terrorist attacks, but it also about implementing a comprehensive strategic plans that takes account of every detail of public safely, understanding the contingency plans and ensuring law and order.
For huge sporting events, like the Olympics, it is obvious that the security infrastructure should be elaborately planned to knit together the intelligence, defence, police and private security companies to be vigilant against any possible threat from terrorists.
Before we can truly examine this question we must consider our role at the games. What we could do? What we should do? What we must do?
Firstly, despite the concerns made by many, I do in principle support LOCOG’s decision to appoint a central security provider. The games are going to be a huge logistical exercise and no one company can manage the task on their own. However, by centralising the management and ensuring everyone works together, we can at least put the processes and systems in place that should lead to safer games.
Budgets are tight, the economy is suffering and the Olympics is seeing its own fair share of cuts. The Organising committee for London 2012 must ensure that in no way the safety and security of the games are compromised. The International Olympic Committee regards security as the "number one priority" for every organising committee, and we must ensure that we have the highest standard of safety procedures for the participants and the visitors alike.
For our industry to provide security for the games across all venues in 2012, we need to work as one team. To achieve this, we need to ensure a degree of uniformity, like creating a force that acts as one and looks as one. And yes, before you ask, I do believe that should include a standard uniform across all staff. Not having the same uniform is likely to create confusion among the crowd, especially if they see security personnel with different uniform across the venues. This could be hugely damaging to the reputation of the city as well as to the UK’s security industry to say the least. Staffing the games will clearly be a huge challenge for us, and, I see serious problems with the suggestion that volunteers be used even if they receive training. Clearly if this works, the legacy would survive as an example of mobilising citizens to be trained to provide security services at huge sporting events at cheaper costs, however, if it fails, the results could be disastrous. The London bombings in 2005, for example show that the threat can be home grown. There has to be highly proficient staff on the ground that are capable of providing full proof security cover at all the venues. The first challenge will be to impart highly professional training to thousands of volunteers, who will be drafted into the ambitious plan of citizen policing. It must be understood, that security responsibilities cannot be taken for granted because a single lapse of judgement or attitude could have a severe fall out. The idea should not be about marshalling thousands of security personnel for a perceived sense of security, but it should be about providing highest level of professional services by people capable enough to pay attention to the nitty-gritty detail of public safety.
Security involves commitment at the highest levels. It is about ensuring that those people entrusted with the responsibilities of providing security are highly motivated and have the public’s interests in mind. It is imperative to realise that people who are recruited to do security duties do it out of full commitment to public safety, and don’t see it as an alternative and free route to games venues. For example, do the organisers really believe every volunteer will be focused on security during the 100 metres final!
I hope that that the concerns highlighted will be addressed in due course, but it will be interesting to see how the legacy of what may be a ‘brilliantly orchestrated’ exercise of human and security management lives on after the games.
The Olympic games should be exciting, and there is a chance that security industry in general will be able to discover new talents and highly motivated people in the process. It is also true that many people might want to take up security as their career choice given that they will have some sort of training and experience after having worked for the London Olympic Games.
The question is, will the UK security industry be in a position to accommodate the newly trained men and women who might want to join the sector? What can the security industry do to make use of the available resource? There is a lot of emphasis on how various resources generated through the whole games could be re-invested into the economy. It is important that the security industry begins to ponder over issues as the industry plans.
