Here’s a welcome return to our pages by Wilson Chowdhry, pictured, MD of the London-based guarding company AA Security.
The SIA website says:
In 2021 we made some changes to the training you need to take before you can get a front line SIA licence. The changes were:
•we introduced new, updated qualifications for all sectors except close protection and vehicle immobilisation;
•you must have a first aid qualification before you can take the training required for a door supervisor or security guard licence; and
•you must have one of the new qualifications or take top-up training before you can apply for a door supervisor and security guard licence – this includes renewals.
They explained why they are making the changes, by writing:
We need to make sure that people working in the private security industry can:
•keep the public safe;
•follow new working practices;
•understand recent changes to the law; and
•make the best use of new technology.
Knowing that many practitioners in the industry are concerned about how difficult new elements to training are and their value to the industry, I have detailed some of my personal experiences of the course. For some while it has been a requisite precursor to SIA training for applicants to have completed a First Aid Course. Most security training providers will include this into a holistic package of learning. If you are seeking to undertake this part of the training separately you must ensure that the training is one of the following standard courses:
•Emergency First Aid at Work qualification;
•First Aid at Work (FAW);
•First Person on Scene (FPOS); and
•First Response Emergency Care (FREC)
Having undertaken the full SIA door supervisors course three years ago, I was not surprised to see that little had changed on the First Aid Course. Don’t get me wrong, in 2010 ago a major change was introduced by the American Heart Association (AHA) in the manner in which CPR is undertaken which a move away from two breaths and ten compressions to two breaths and 30 compressions. Realising that compressions are the most important aspect of resuscitation through analyses of CPR records and expert opinion. But these are rare changes. That said, it does seem as if a further move towards compressions-only for lay people will ensue in the future. This is because of fears many have of mouth-to-mouth contact.
The current training course also expanded on the use of Automated External Defibrillators (AED), which took up more time in my top-up course than in my original course three years ago. This time every student was able to use the dummy AED devices. Most experts now believe that AED should be first response before CPR and in essence controlled by it. This because AED is seen as the safest and most efficient way to tackle cardiac arrest. The British Heart Foundation now even say that CPR is a technique used until an AED is available. Though this is not yet taught on the First Aid Course it will be an advancement I expect in future courses.
We learnt a description of the three types of blood, which helps first-aiders understand how serious a wound is. This relates to distinguishing between blood released from capillaries, veins (dark red) or from arteries (bright red). The blood released from either of these three blood vessels will generally be different in colour and viscosity. The current training course also expanded on the use of defibrillators which took up more time in my top-up course than in my original course three years ago. The course pressed home the need to seek consent before assisting a casualty if the person is conscious and we were advised of the implications of tattoos or jewellery with the initials DNR. This was explained to be an abbreviation for the words ‘Do Not Resuscitate’.
The top up First Aid and Door Supervisor training seemed to heavily emphasise the rights of a person. I’ll now share more about the upgrading of the Door Supervisor course.
The door course had changed little overall but the elements that had changed seemed quite useful. In particular the use of CB Radios included a practical assessment and I was shocked at how many practitioners on my course had not learnt the phonetic alphabet, or had little knowledge of the language used when using radios. Two people of the 12 on my course failed after several attempts and scraped through the following day. One of them was confusing terms they had heard on Hollywood movies and kept saying ‘Copy that’ instead of ‘over’. It was a bizarre classroom session and one that enticed several collective giggles.
One student got so frustrated, he even argued with the trainer saying that spelling letters out normally was a phonetic process. The patient trainer explained how the use of radio used phonetic language first used by the US Army during World War One and that learning it was a pre-requisite for certification of the course. The complainant was one of the two men that had to retake the assessment the next day and struggled again though he squeezed through the process, eventually.
However, perhaps the biggest change to the course was to elements of physical intervention (PI). From the outset of this unit emphasis on perceiving warning signs for ‘Positional Asphyxiation’ and affirming ‘duty of care’ was apparent. These factors also dominated our exam and most of the discussion during the two days of the course. It was clear to me that the new training in this area was a consequence of the 2020 murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, USA. Disturbing videos of Mr Floyd’s arrest illustrate significant incompetence by police officers who continued with extremely violent and restrictive holds, despite his regular appeals ‘I can’t breathe’, words that became a chant that led a campaign against police brutality, especially against discriminated black people. Though it should be noted the same police brutality has led to the death of white people in the US too.
Mr Floyd during his arrest called for water, explained he could not breathe and asked officers to get off him. At least three police officers had him pinned to the floor even though he had both his arms restricted behind his back with cuffs. One police officer even had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes during a very disturbing arrest on a suspicion. Mr Floyd was also under the influence of drugs at the time which is said to have contributed to the risk to his life and eventual death by positional asphyxiation.
The training has gathered every aspect of the errors made in this arrest and advice was given to learners to constantly asses situations in which any restrictive force is used and to use minimum force necessary, while also avoiding force where possible. Safety measures such as removing any physical restriction as soon as it is no longer necessary, and ensuring that the subject of any restrictive manoeuvre is safe at all times. Dynamic risk assessment was reiterated; but advice on what to consider about an individual and area in which you undertake a restrictive manoeuvre was high on the agenda. Does the person show any signs of intoxication, will their age affect then amount of force used, consider their size, consider what they are wearing, is the floor free of sharp objects – learners were told to keep reassessing the situation. Each learner was also told that they have a duty of care to their subject, and colleagues, so even if involved as an observer or in the process of any restriction they would not only keep a record of details but inform their colleagues of dangers with a shared responsibility.
Even our practical use of PI techniques revolved around non-restrictive techniques. Officers were taught most of the original methods of release from holds, controlled escort of premises and pinning down on chairs without being able to grip with hands but having joined but fingers in a pincer shape. We were advised that any form of bruising could result in an allegation of battery, and again duty of care was reiterated to us. Throughout the practical and the course in general learners were advised that any physical intervention must be a last resort. This led to an interesting discussion about the one-punch-knockout by ex-professional boxer Julian Francis, who was working as a door supervisor at an event [in summer 2022; featured in the March print edition of Professional Security magazine].
Mr Francis’ punch was recorded on video and has led many to question why he was not charged for assault and battery. It does seem fortunate that the man he hit recovered from the blow as a death would most certainly have led to a deeper inquiry. It seems that the aggressive nature and punch thrown earlier by the man who was ranting and venting at a number of security officers, was felt to be enough to attribute the forceful punch as a defensive pre-emptive strike. This debate will no doubt continue.
I move swiftly to the Action Counters Terrorism (ACT) training which has been revamped significantly. Not only does the training now refresh knowledge on observances but also expands on how to professionally react to concerns, to intimidate would-be-terrorists while also reassuring innocent people. We were reminded of the use of good customer service as a tool for effective security surveillance. For instance, asking someone acting suspiciously if they need help rather that an outright confrontation. The course shared the much publicised ‘Run-Hide-Tell’ procedure which is self-explanatory but places an onus on officers to help others in their vicinity as they themselves seek safety and call police in gun-attack and other dangerous situations. A sensible approach to identifying suspect packages was highlighted. The need to assess whether a bag left alone is suspicious, included identifying other factors such as are their wires protruding, is the owner nearby perhaps reading a timetable, and is there an attempt to hide the bag from public view. The mnemonic HOT Hidden-Obvious-Typical was shared as a good tool for assessment.
“H – Has the item been Hidden? Has it deliberately been concealed? O – Is it Obviously suspicious? Does it seem odd or out of place, is there wires, liquids or batteries sticking out of it? T – Is it Typical for the location?”
Though most of this training was a refresher from the previous course, the examples shown had improved. One major change was the use of a virtual reality assessment tool in which learners were required to take part in a scenario where terrorist had entered a building. Choices of where to go and to tell others to hide. created better awareness of safe zones and exit strategies during a terrorist incident. Though working through a computer-generated scenario will not pose the whole raft of dangers involved in a real-life attack, the program certainly gave users a sense of best practice.
Ann added facet of the current course is access to an app labelled ‘Protect UK’ that provides users with a recap on what to do in terrorist scenarios detailed in ‘Action Cards’. There are a range of situations listed including Unattended Item Action Card, Bomb Threat Action Card and others. The app contains a First Aid emergency Action Cards The app also shares emergency contact details and informs users of current threat levels in the UK while also allowing access to the training videos from the ACT Course. This app is a must-have for anyone working in the security industry.
In conclusion, I have to refer back to the SIA’s purported aims with the training provision.
•keep the public safe
•follow new working practices
•understand recent changes to the law
•make the best use of new technology
I can’t disagree that the new training improves knowledge within the industry and hence helps practitioners to keep public safe. There are also several new working practices identified in the manner of using PI and in the use of non-restrictive manoeuvres. The use of AED equipment certainly meets the SIA aim of making use of new technology.
It was strange to hear from a learner on the course that the training was simply a cash cow for the SIA. Firstly, the SIA don’t make money from the training regime – training providers do. Moreover, we pay for the license irrespective of refresher training or not. It was not surprising to see that the man who was complaining was struggling with much of the content of the course.
The course certainly helps with refreshing our knowledge and it felt as if throughout the course, I was learning how to meet the requirements of the law in the undertaking of security duties. The SIA licensing regime has certainly removed much though not all of the rogue elements within our industry, and the need for a tri-annual DBS [Disclosure and Barring Service] check has contributed to this. But most importantly, modern officers are now all professionally trained, regularly updated on changes to the industry and law and now are all first-aiders.
From the creation of the SIA I was always an early proponent of ensuring that security officers are trained in first aid, after all, often lone workers or the only permanent presence at a deployed location. My only bugbear about the first aid refresher is that it does not cover enough of the different first aid practices in a refresher. Perhaps first-aid top-ups should be cyclical so over time learners do refresh the entirety of the course, otherwise many of the basic practices such as how to bandage different wounds, how to make appropriate slings or wash an eye that has been traumatised will simply be forgotten. Though it should be stated that the Protect UK app does share reminders for most first aid procedures and is worth a download by anyone working in the industry.
In my opinion, we have moved far away from the not-fit-for-purpose image that once tarred the industry. Whatever we feel about the SIA it has to be unanimously accepted that the industry has developed into one that members of the public now view as professional.
