Search
RISK UK – ARTICLE
– JULY 2008
For the Olympics you have to develop an approach to a security culture that balances volunteers and paid workers to cover the functions of security, supervised by technology. The most direct option is for SSR to ship in 8,000 trained event staff from outside of the UK. All we need to offer are campsite facilities and arrange for SIA dispensation for them. Either way, this would provide security for the Games, without delivering the legacy of social interoperability.
With such an iconic event we need originality as well as social accountability. The nature of the Games since World War II has been a celebration of nations. Whilst the Olympic committee might wish to distance themselves from the terrorists of Munich and Atlanta, or the politics of Montreal and Moscow these Games demonstrated that the brand of the four rings is something to be used by those with a cause. In the past 12 years we have heard greater emphasis on social responsibility, leaving a social legacy, which might not be the outcomes that the peoples of Sydney and Athens will recount. London has that opportunity.
The most certain way of developing a legacy for the local community , whilst providing a reliable security force for the Games, is to form social contracts with London Schools. Investment should be given to schools to create cadet forces for their students. To equip them and engage with young adults who might otherwise be on the streets. The social contract would be an agreement to vocationally train security skills to students, developing a esprit de corps and create a vision which makes them wish to stay out of trouble and be part of the UK celebration in 2012.
With a current cadet force of approximately 2,000 in London, to develop 8,000 young people from a City of 8,000,000 would be relatively easy to organise. The BSIA could provide oxygen to the initiative. Manned guarding companies might provide, without cost, trainers to work with the cadet forces. We could introduce a generation to the world of security.
We might need to re-label the security tags from “Guard “ to “ Event Ambassador “. Providing training for the 2012 Event Ambassadors, could perhaps count towards a young person’s vocational training. Training would include first aid, evacuation procedures, responsibilities of first responders and fire fighting. If we then added investigations, counter surveillance and forensic protection, we might also get enquiries from our Ambassadors for relevant blue light careers.
All of this will be impractical if we, the professional sector, are still in 2012 delivering service and people on the minimum rates of pay!
For the Olympics you have to develop an approach to a security culture that balances volunteers and paid workers to cover the functions of security, supervised by technology. The most direct option is for SSR to ship in 8,000 trained event staff from outside of the UK. All we need to offer are campsite facilities and arrange for SIA dispensation for them. Either way, this would provide security for the Games, without delivering the legacy of social interoperability.
With such an iconic event we need originality as well as social accountability. The nature of the Games since World War II has been a celebration of nations. Whilst the Olympic committee might wish to distance themselves from the terrorists of Munich and Atlanta, or the politics of Montreal and Moscow these Games demonstrated that the brand of the four rings is something to be used by those with a cause. In the past 12 years we have heard greater emphasis on social responsibility, leaving a social legacy, which might not be the outcomes that the peoples of Sydney and Athens will recount. London has that opportunity.
The most certain way of developing a legacy for the local community , whilst providing a reliable security force for the Games, is to form social contracts with London Schools. Investment should be given to schools to create cadet forces for their students. To equip them and engage with young adults who might otherwise be on the streets. The social contract would be an agreement to vocationally train security skills to students, developing a esprit de corps and create a vision which makes them wish to stay out of trouble and be part of the UK celebration in 2012.
With a current cadet force of approximately 2,000 in London, to develop 8,000 young people from a City of 8,000,000 would be relatively easy to organise. The BSIA could provide oxygen to the initiative. Manned guarding companies might provide, without cost, trainers to work with the cadet forces. We could introduce a generation to the world of security.
We might need to re-label the security tags from “Guard “ to “ Event Ambassador “. Providing training for the 2012 Event Ambassadors, could perhaps count towards a young person’s vocational training. Training would include first aid, evacuation procedures, responsibilities of first responders and fire fighting. If we then added investigations, counter surveillance and forensic protection, we might also get enquiries from our Ambassadors for relevant blue light careers.
All of this will be impractical if we, the professional sector, are still in 2012 delivering service and people on the minimum rates of pay!