Our regular contributor, Peter Whitehead, writes about body armour. If readers do have comments on the subject, that they don’t mind adding to the debate and going in the next issue of the magazine – which has an annual retail security supplement – please email editor Mark Rowe at [email protected]
Many years ago I wrote an article about body armour, describing how store detectives can add to their safety by producing their own basic head, chest and forearm armour. Quite reasonably this magazine felt that readers might feel that such an article could be inappropriate. Indeed, in those days most manufacturers of body armour would only deal with recognised military and police forces. I remember one representative who actually laughed at me for having the audacity to call his company, since I was not a member of a government force.<br><br>Things haven’t changed much in some counties. A Sunday tabloid recently reported that security operatives at a large hypermarket in Peterborough are all now wearing protective vests, and that ‘police’ have criticised this decision because it is inappropriate and upsets the public’s feelings of wellbeing.<br><br>Firstly, let’s agree that the tabloid could have snatched any comment from any constable to use the word ‘Police’, and I do doubt that the Constabulary would be so stupid as to make such comment. The tabloid did not explain exactly whether the protection is in the form of a discreet hidden vest or a highly visible jacket, but either way the public sees such equipment regularly now.<br><br>Such comments are no longer acceptable or lawful. Nobody has the right to do or say anything which might place an employee in danger, and that includes where an employee might be placed under duress to discard safety equipment of any sort. Just read the Health and Safety at Work Act if you have any doubts. <br><br>Only 65 miles away, five months ago, a retail guard was stabbed to death and a second seriously injured in a knife attack. Security, CCTV, wheel-clamping, close-protection, CIT [cash in transit] and door supervision operatives all have the right to wear the protective clothing and equipment that they need, or are instructed to use, and nobody should dare to suggest otherwise. <br><br>I look forward with interest to reading other readers’ comments about this.<br><br>About the writer<br><br>Peter is among other things a trainer and loss prevention man. You’ll read a page of his comments in the May print issue of Professional Security Magazine, about the forthcoming though delayed SIA licences for private detectives.
Risk management consultant Richard Slater writes: I certainly concur with Peter Whitehead’s general comments regarding the use of body armour in the various vulnerable sectors of the security industry. Even though I am able to go back some years, I am at a disadvantage concerning Peter’s original article as referred to. However, I am aware that the use of some form of `protective vest` has been a popular `item of equipment` with door supervisors at venues (nightclubs and bars) within the more volatile towns and cities promoting the `late night economy` for some years now.
I must say that I did not notice any reticence on the part of the police during that time to accept that door supervisors wore some form of protective clothing. It may well be that the protective vests worn by door supervisors have not been quite so noticeable as that apparently worn by the security officer mentioned in your article. The article referred to appears in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, dated April 14, 2007 and is accompanied by a photograph, probably taken with a mobile phone, of the back view of what appears to be a security officer wearing, reportedly, a `stab vest` whilst patrolling the (Riverside) Asda store in the Rivergate complex. Perhaps an `under-garment` would have been more appropriate. The item contains a quotation from Chief Supt Paul Phillipson, Cambridgeshire Police (Divisional Commander?).
Mr Phillipson does not actually actually criticise the decision but comments on the approach taken (by Asda). Therefore I cannot see that Mr Phillipson’s remarks are "no longer acceptable or lawful" as it is up to each individual employer to risk assess the various areas within that particular employment and thereafter carry out the appropriate measures in order to ensure that the `duty of care` is properly established – exactly what Asda are doing. Whilst it may be that police are concerned in the investigation any criminal activity as far as the Health and Safety at Work Act is concerned It is not their duty to start dictating to business when no breach of the criminal legislation has taken place. The article indicates that Mr Phillipson is (hopefully) making constructive comment. No, I am not an apologist for the police service.
Unfortunately, in this impracticable politically correct world of ours the police, as with most other public bodies, are no only afraid to speak out for fear of upsetting someone or some body, but are also tied by their political masters to follow the party line – numerous examples exist, enough to fill the pages for a while! Thank heavens for the security industry, so far! One such good example is the immediate follow-up quotation, contained in the same Evening Telegraph article, attributed to Stewart Jackson, Conservative MP for Peterborough, who immediately leapt on to his political bandwagon by saying that the move by the guards was an over-reaction and is further attributed with the statement: "What next? Guns in supermarkets? It’s a bit over the top.”
I am concerned that the MP for Peterborough is not more aware of his party’s shocking record of going soft on crime in the 1980s and never making a recovery – (the statistics scream in support). Furthermore, of Labour’s appalling approach to crime and disorder, which has lead to the need for a security officer in a supermarket to wear a protective vest. Knives and guns are the `norm` for any `local` thief or robber – part of `their equipment`. Hence I would have thought it would be more beneficial for Stewart Jackson to support the Asda security guard’s (manager’s?) initiative. We can open this debate even further and no doubt will at a later date, by making reference to Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), probably even more vulnerable than security officers and with just about the same powers. But I am sure that the PCSOs feel a great deal safer when they are permitted to wear protective vests and carry personal radios (no CS gas sprays or batons!) – sounds familiar?
Without the need to further quote from the article, it is very apparent that the `dinosaur syndrome` (and political correctness?) has taken over in Peterborough as evidenced by comments from the City Centre Director Annette Joyce, Stuart Wright, Vice Chairman of Centre Safe and City Council Leader John Peach. Will the three of you please let yourselves be dragged into the real (criminal / crime prevention) world of the 21st century! In order to let that happen perhaps all concerned should visit (should have visited) the Safer Doors Conference being held on May 2 at (significantly enough) East of England Showground, Peterborough. The keynote speaker is Vernon Coaker MP, Under-Secretary of State for police and security (Stewart Jackson et al to note, please). Among the exhibitors will be several who specialise in protective vests and body armour. I trust that not only will Professional Security be reporting the event but also the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
Thank you Peter for getting this one going. It is just an indication of what the security officer is up against and for which he / she is not getting too much support.
