James Sanderson writes to agree with the door supervisor comment in the July print issue of Professional Security Magazine.
I run a new security training company and one of the courses I offer is door supervision. I have seen time and time again, people who attend training and pass the course but are not suited (if they get licensed) to door work. In my opinion the courses are nowhere near good enough and certainly don’t prepare people to work in that environment. The problem is not just the people attracted to the role, it is also a problem of the awarding bodies. The syllabus and learning objectives have not and do not change to reflect the threat faced by door supervisors. I recently ran a course where on the second paper (communication and conflict management) all the questions around communication were asking about communication over radio, phonetic alphabet and every other way of communication other than face to face which they clearly should have been.
In the sad case of Mohamed Kaleem Rafeek, the club-pub and employer has to shoulder most of the blame. Working on doors is dangerous and physical violence whether it occurs regularly or not is a risk that has to be managed. Did this venue have violence at work policy? Had they done violence at work risk assessment? Had they been given edged weapons awareness training? I can see readers cringing at policy and risk assessment in the same way that people cringe about the view of door supervisors. Done correctly they work but it depends on the person / company doing it. How many door supervisors or security operatives know what force they can use should they need to? I suspect if my training experience shows correctly, not many. I gave training to a door supervisor of 10 years standing who had been told by previous training providers, employer, and venue that any force had to be minimal. This in itself is unlawful as it takes away the individual’s right to use force in law.
How many door supervisors have done manual handling training? Manual handling is the moving of a load and load includes that of a person. This is fine if door supervisors escort with no resistance but what about the majority of situations when they are involved in struggles and physical ejection? How many door supervisors are given control and restraint training? Not many; and when training is given is it effective? If we apply the same argument against the providers of control and restraint training then most of the techniques they use are complicated and unworkable. We ask people to do a four-day course and then give them a bit of plastic and they are now competent to do the job.
The majority of people’s experience of door supervisors is big guys dressed in black who look menacing, probably have a weapon with them, and will take them out the back for a "good kicking". Door supervisors when they are badged will then live up to the stereotype because that is what they have seen in their experience and now they can be the one taking people out the back. When the new door supervisor gets to his / her first door they are taken under the wing of the door manager. One of the first thing he / she will say is ‘forget what you learned on the course this is the real world’. Is it any wonder that we can’t break the cycle and chain of thought. I don’t want to paint a bleak picture as there are some very professional people who make a difference and want to see a difference. There are very good companies and indeed training providers but equally there are very poor ones who don’t deserve to be in a position to take people hard earned cash off them.
The awarding bodies need to seriously look at the content of the courses. I can write a bespoke course and deliver it to individuals and companies but what those people really want (quite rightly) is a nationally recognised qualification.
The companies who employ door supervisors should also shoulder the blame. Because the profits are small companies will do the bare minimum for their employees. The door supervision course is four days so why should employers provide manual handling, control and restraint, edged weapons awareness, etc, etc? Well, by failing to prepare their staff properly they are in a very untenable place in law if an employee is injured and health and safety and police are involved. Simply saying ‘they were licensed’ will not wash.
The Health and Safety Executive definition of violence is "any situation in which a person is abused threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work"; therefore every company should have violence at work policy. Why?
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Sect 2 says employers have DUTIES to employees. Two of these are a safety policy and a safe place of work. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 tell employers that when they identify a risk then they MUST assess and document that risk and reduce it. Simply having the risk assessment does not mean they are covered. If there is a risk then yes it has to be documented but then the employer must do something about that risk.
If we look at the sad case of Kaleem and ask the question could his death have been prevented the answer has to be ‘of course it could’. When we ask people to stand on a licensed premise door and refuse entry to a few is it then acceptable that they are then left to walk home alone at night where some of those aggrieved people may be waiting as in this case?. Why don’t companies provide a minibus to collect their staff and at least take them out of the immediate area of the venue? Why don’t they provide taxis? One answer to both of these questions, money. If you are an employer of security staff then a little food for thought.
Better to pay for taxis than have your company wiped out at the stroke of a pen in court. Since January 16, 2009, magistrates’ powers have been increased. For instance one of the more common offences for which magistrates may impose fines of up to £20,000 and / or prison sentences up to 12 months: and for which the crown court may impose unlimited fines and prison sentences up to two years is "Failure to ensure safety of employees" the fine does not distinguish between gross and NET profit. You will be fined on gross.
