Risks posed by pressure groups’ direct action are analysed by Jim Batty, Senior Risk Auditor at Group 4 Securicor (UK Security).
In recent months the media has been filled with images of pressure group campaigners in garish superhero costumes and protestors have even entered the House of Commons. While some commentators have dismissed these protests as ‘a bit of fun’, in reality they constitute serious security breaches and have proved costly for UK Plc and exposed gaps in public security. Security companies should be conscious that increasing mainstream exposure may push pressure groups to ever more controversial protests in an attempt to influence public opinion and make a mark on the media landscape.
It has been argued by some commentators in the security industry that the media is culpable for a rise in direct action protests, by affording participants extensive coverage. It has also been argued that breaches of security at key sites and against high profile "targets" (such as Buckingham Palace, Parliament, Tower Bridge, Severn Bridge) are in the ‘public interest’, as they draw into question the efficiency of existing security measures and inevitably force stricter security controls at such sites. While those in the private security industry should in no way advocate or laud these attacks, they have illustrated the importance of implementing proactive security planning and tight security controls.
Increased media coverage of pressure group activity can also be attributed to activists’ success in moving their causes up the media agenda. These organisations are increasingly focused and media savvy in their operations. It is important that the real security risks of the types of ‘stunts’ employed by groups like Fathers 4 Justice are not forgotten. While a protestor in a superhero costume may appear to be from a group merely seeking media attention, others could be planning something altogether more sinister using this modus operandi to exploit perceived sympathy in order to get close to a sensitive target.
The cost to business over the last 12 months as a result of pressure group activity is undoubtedly significant, with the true cost likely to be hidden as a consequence of sensitivities associated with pressure group activity. One positive for the industry is that businesses and security companies are also becoming increasingly savvy and aware of how to deal with protests and direct action. The government’s signalled intention to robustly deal with these groups via the legal process is to be welcomed and it may limit their effectiveness in the longer term.
Security companies should ensure that training of staff is conducted to address pressure group threats and provide security officers with the tools, experience and confidence to deal with the protesters efficiently. It is important security officers are educated regarding the tactics employed by activist groups, ensuring the provision of information relating to legal issues and initiating suitable responses to direct action demonstrations. Security planning and risk assessment is crucial. A programme of proactive "threat" assessment will assist both the customer, and security officers in identifying vulnerable areas and weaknesses which activists may exploit to make their point, gain publicity or disrupt operations.
By assessing physical security at a customer site, gaps in the physical protection can be identified, restricting opportunities for activist groups to mount protests, for example by gaining access to a roof via an unsecured door. It is also very important that security officers ensure they do not overreact, which could result in a situation escalating and lead to adverse media coverage which may further the protesters’ cause.
Despite often operating in a high pressure and volatile environment it is essential security officers recognise they have a duty of care for protestors, even if activists are acting illegally, for example by trespassing in a restricted area. The majority of protestors know this and some will attempt to exploit this duty of care for their own ends, believing it may inhibit the ability of security officers to effectively tackle a situation. Security companies must operate within the law and deal with security incidents in accordance with Health & Safety legislation, Occupiers Liability laws, and abide by general welfare controls when dealing with protesters whilst on a customer’s property.
However, it is often overlooked that there is an attendant obligation on protesters to operate within the law. Theoretically they must not willingly put themselves or others at risk, where reasonable measures can be used to mitigate the risks posed. It is important that security officers recognise this particularly if there is a question of activists being censured or prosecuted for illegal actions.
It is crucial that staff dealing with pressure groups receive conflict management training, which is now becoming standard across the security industry. Preparing security officers as to how to respond appropriately and within the law protects organisations from legal censure, reduces their liabilities, mitigating damage to reputation if any incident gets out of hand. A measured, low-key, response is best to diffuse heated, protest scenarios. Such training also provides the skills required to reduce the impact of a physical attack or assault against security officers, or business people. However, while it is desirable that all security officers receive conflict management training, the costs can be prohibitive and smaller providers with low profit margins and financial resources may not have the conviction, capacity or resources to train staff adequately. These organisations will soon be compelled to recognise the importance of this training as the Security Industry Authority [SIA] now requires this as a training requirement for licences.
It can be difficult for security officers to distinguish between legitimate protests and illegal actions. However, hard line protests invariably fall within the realms of public order and this is unequivocally a police issue. Security companies and staff (except security officers designated as new community wardens) do not have the legal authority or resources and equipment to deal with such protestors. Security officers and their parent companies have an image and reputation to protect. Some media savvy protesters would encourage and relish the opportunity to set up a photo opportunity of an apparently brutal security officer attacking seemingly innocent protesters on a peaceful legal protest. It is important that security officers apply their conflict management training to ensure their demeanour, poise and actions do not inflame what may already be a highly volatile situation.
Security planning is crucial whether businesses seek to guard against terrorist attacks, pressure groups or disgruntled employees in batman costumes. Risk management and contingency planning for all risks should be a cornerstone of any security strategy. A holistic and detailed strategy designed to deal with higher level security risks such as terrorism will inevitably provide a degree of protection for lower level security risks, for example unauthorised intrusion and criminal damage. It is important to assess the risks faced by each potential target and design controls to mitigate the risk. An isolated strategy to deal with a single security risk or pressure group threat has the potential to be undermined easily, exposing other assets to risk and vulnerability. Direct action and pressure group activism is on the increase, it is therefore crucial that security companies plan how to effectively combat this threat.
