Kia Ora,
Since their introduction to the NZ Police force, the taser has being the object of debate.
But hopefully the incident recently in Invercargill will put that to rest.
Prior to the incident the UN had asked NZ to stop using tasers as they were intruments of torture.
It is a classic case of someone sitting in an office & at most carrying out a quick visit, but not really getting to know their subject.
NZ is an extremely violent society despite it appearing nice clean & open. & it is becoming worse. Police in one city have commented on how virtually every person they arrest has a knife. Security at one bar have indicated that they find on average a knife on the floor of the bar once every two weeks.
Because of low population base spread widely it appears there is not much crime. Work security at night & you virtually hear a firearm used most nights & a reporters undercover investigating showed weapons being fired into the air to prove they worked, but nothing was reported.
But everytime the NZ police need to use their firearms which is increasing, there is upset. So there needed to be something in between the firearm & other options.
The reports of the incident in Invercargill was firearms & possible shots were involved depending on which article you read.
On arrival a brawl in process in the street & two persons approached police with weapons (baton & stick), so weapons were drawn by two officers, but it was the intervention of the third officer with a taser on one of persons refusing to stop or lay on the ground that ended the situation.
Most interesting were the comments of residents. They were sure they were about to see someone shot in their street. One went so far to say they had being anti the taser but after witnessing what happened they have changed their mind.
What was less widely reported was a second incident in Dunedin where a woman was threatening self harm & despite hours of negotiation she would not come out & was armed with a knife. Fearing for her safety, police have gained entry & used a taser to subdue her.
In both instances it would appear the best option.
In the first it was used in conjunction with firearms as back up. A fire arm once used isn't as forgiving as a taser.
& in the second it was best option for woman's & police safety. People threatening self harm find extra strength & when dealing with them it is almost certain to sustain some sort of injury if they are really determined.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Female Suicide Bombers. How common are they?
Kia Ora,
We now have the terrorist attacks in Moscow. The claims are that they were both women. How can they know so quick? Actually it is quite easy to identify the remains of someone who has worn a suicide vest amongst all the bodies parts & mayhem. It takes you about 30 seconds to work out if a vehicle or vest bomber has hit.
Unless of course you are in NZ then a senior police officer would say they are still collating the information & the investigation would take months to confirm the source of the blast. That would be followed by the government (no matter what party) putting together a commission of inquiry & a select committee sub committee to find out what happened.
The results of which would announce that there was no clear evidence that a suicide bombing actually took place.
Now to the question of how common are Female suicide bombers? In Iraq the US military claimed that this type of attack was loosing support as they had started using women.
That flies in the face of intelligence that was available in 2004.
First was the report of a group in Iran asking for volunteer suicide bombers & getting 4000 volunteers in a week.
This was followed by about a week later of information of a website where you register to be a suicide bomber. There were 40,000 enquiries & 30,000 applications in the first week from memory. Over half the applications were from women or young teenage boys.
The Attraction was not Jihad for many either. It was the US$40,000 per successful detonation that went to the family.
It was reputed to be a very professional set up with both prospective bomber & family interviewed to ensure the applicant was suitable & family was happy with it all.
Of course once you have identified that it has being a suicide bombing (& it has to be done on the spot & extremely quickly) you must prepare for the follow up bombing as it is a common tactic.
In fact you hardly ever have a bombing in isolation as evidenced in Moscow & I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there were others that for one reason or another failed to detonate.
Even after the bombing it is going to take that required change in mindset to be able to shoot a female or elderly person that is perceived to be a suicide bomber.
We now have the terrorist attacks in Moscow. The claims are that they were both women. How can they know so quick? Actually it is quite easy to identify the remains of someone who has worn a suicide vest amongst all the bodies parts & mayhem. It takes you about 30 seconds to work out if a vehicle or vest bomber has hit.
Unless of course you are in NZ then a senior police officer would say they are still collating the information & the investigation would take months to confirm the source of the blast. That would be followed by the government (no matter what party) putting together a commission of inquiry & a select committee sub committee to find out what happened.
The results of which would announce that there was no clear evidence that a suicide bombing actually took place.
Now to the question of how common are Female suicide bombers? In Iraq the US military claimed that this type of attack was loosing support as they had started using women.
That flies in the face of intelligence that was available in 2004.
First was the report of a group in Iran asking for volunteer suicide bombers & getting 4000 volunteers in a week.
This was followed by about a week later of information of a website where you register to be a suicide bomber. There were 40,000 enquiries & 30,000 applications in the first week from memory. Over half the applications were from women or young teenage boys.
The Attraction was not Jihad for many either. It was the US$40,000 per successful detonation that went to the family.
It was reputed to be a very professional set up with both prospective bomber & family interviewed to ensure the applicant was suitable & family was happy with it all.
Of course once you have identified that it has being a suicide bombing (& it has to be done on the spot & extremely quickly) you must prepare for the follow up bombing as it is a common tactic.
In fact you hardly ever have a bombing in isolation as evidenced in Moscow & I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there were others that for one reason or another failed to detonate.
Even after the bombing it is going to take that required change in mindset to be able to shoot a female or elderly person that is perceived to be a suicide bomber.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Arming Police & Security in NZ.
Kia Ora,
Well since my last blog there has being a development in this area. The NZ Police Association has renewed its push for NZ Police to be armed.
Having access to firearms is something in todays society is a must, but there are other issues.
As Simon pointed out in his comment several blogs back they need the training to be able to use them correctly & that in general NZ police do not get at present. They also need the mindset to use them possibly with deadly force. That mindset is just not there in the NZ Police Force at present.
Then there is when they would be able to get that required extra training. There is just not the numbers in the NZ Police to allow that to happen.
In the latest incident where the officers where set upon it was suggested they should of had a Taser to which the police have replied that pepper spray was best option.
The situation of a large group would see pepper spray as best option in first instance. A taser could only stop one person at a time. Firearms might persuade people to co operate but as with any weapon it can be double edged if the group are able to get hold of them.
So if the police are looking at them shouldn't some of the security industry also have weapons?
I have said it before. I wouldn't arm 99% of the current security industry with a ball point pen let alone a firearm (to which one police officer replied "I wouldn't arm 75% of the NZ Police Force").
If the Police see from a health & safety issue to wear bodyarmour then all security should be also wearing it as we are often confronting the same issues & usually alone.
Therefore if the Police are now considering arming themsleves then so should security.
It is not well known in NZ that whilst the Police have being unarmed since about the end of the 1800's, private security was armed until 1974 in NZ in a very low key fashion. There is no reason for that to start again & in fact a proper Risk Assessment would show that weapons should already be carried in many situations.
So what would that require on behalf of the security industry?
First a change in mindset. As is stands currently the industry just 'Plays' at it.
Going hand in hand with that is training & good training at that, not the general mickey mouse stuff we get in the guise of NZQA at present.
For example earlier this week I was in a public building where a guard was lounging against a wall watching those using the facilities. First thing you would of noticed was he was wearing a fluro jacket in breach of Health & Safety.
Next thing was the smell of smoke from a fire started coming in the door. So what does our guard do, but walk away.
Security is actually Safety & Security & in this case it was likely a cigarette dropped in rubbish bin outside door, therefore guards area of responsibility, & you could see the smoke building out of it. So it was up to me to report it to reception, which then resulted in the cleaners in responding with buckets of water.
Then & only then did our hero guard return to lounge against the same wall. In the meantime one of the area guards, from another company, had come in to check out the smell of smoke.
Now as expected it is a common incident here, but the reactions of the guard shows a few things.
First he hasn't being properly trained.
Second the venue & in particular the security have no procedures for this issue.
Third he was lazy & incompetent as even without procedures he should of had his own & it should not include just walking off.
So with guards like that I wouldn't want him armed. If he is going to be lazy or not bothered in this incident what is he going to be like when he has to use a firearm.
From a legal point of view whether soldier, police officer or private security when using firearms you need to not only know the Rules of Engagement(ROE's), but understand how they work in practise.
The military achieve this through BHL's/BHE's. Private security would have to do the same. That means using military instructors more as the majority of the current crop of instructors have little idea of true security but would struggle with the instructing required.
Another consideration is the weapons to be used.
With a pistol or revolver you only achieve the competency seen in the movies with hundreds of hours of practise. They are not that accurate especially when a person is your target not cardboard cut outs.
The Private industry will not have the budget for training that government agencies have (& in NZ they virtually could call themselves private companies for the amount allocated to use of firing live rounds. The army being the agency that uses them the most), so will need a weapon that needs minimum training & greater accuracy.
Therefore it is dangerous enough out there for Police to be pushing for firearms then the security industry needs to look at it too. But it needs to those with sufficient training.
A two day course is not enough. Even a two week course could be well short of the mark.
Where as a two hour refresher for ex military(teeth arms/special forces in particular) people is more than enough usually to switch them back on to the use of firearms.
Then you have to add in the training to understand ROE's, which again there is less of a requirement for ex military as they inherently understand them having trained & used them before.
So Police permanently armed? There is a good case for it, it is just the training required & the increase in numbers. But there is an equally good case for arming a small number of the private security industry.
Well since my last blog there has being a development in this area. The NZ Police Association has renewed its push for NZ Police to be armed.
Having access to firearms is something in todays society is a must, but there are other issues.
As Simon pointed out in his comment several blogs back they need the training to be able to use them correctly & that in general NZ police do not get at present. They also need the mindset to use them possibly with deadly force. That mindset is just not there in the NZ Police Force at present.
Then there is when they would be able to get that required extra training. There is just not the numbers in the NZ Police to allow that to happen.
In the latest incident where the officers where set upon it was suggested they should of had a Taser to which the police have replied that pepper spray was best option.
The situation of a large group would see pepper spray as best option in first instance. A taser could only stop one person at a time. Firearms might persuade people to co operate but as with any weapon it can be double edged if the group are able to get hold of them.
So if the police are looking at them shouldn't some of the security industry also have weapons?
I have said it before. I wouldn't arm 99% of the current security industry with a ball point pen let alone a firearm (to which one police officer replied "I wouldn't arm 75% of the NZ Police Force").
If the Police see from a health & safety issue to wear bodyarmour then all security should be also wearing it as we are often confronting the same issues & usually alone.
Therefore if the Police are now considering arming themsleves then so should security.
It is not well known in NZ that whilst the Police have being unarmed since about the end of the 1800's, private security was armed until 1974 in NZ in a very low key fashion. There is no reason for that to start again & in fact a proper Risk Assessment would show that weapons should already be carried in many situations.
So what would that require on behalf of the security industry?
First a change in mindset. As is stands currently the industry just 'Plays' at it.
Going hand in hand with that is training & good training at that, not the general mickey mouse stuff we get in the guise of NZQA at present.
For example earlier this week I was in a public building where a guard was lounging against a wall watching those using the facilities. First thing you would of noticed was he was wearing a fluro jacket in breach of Health & Safety.
Next thing was the smell of smoke from a fire started coming in the door. So what does our guard do, but walk away.
Security is actually Safety & Security & in this case it was likely a cigarette dropped in rubbish bin outside door, therefore guards area of responsibility, & you could see the smoke building out of it. So it was up to me to report it to reception, which then resulted in the cleaners in responding with buckets of water.
Then & only then did our hero guard return to lounge against the same wall. In the meantime one of the area guards, from another company, had come in to check out the smell of smoke.
Now as expected it is a common incident here, but the reactions of the guard shows a few things.
First he hasn't being properly trained.
Second the venue & in particular the security have no procedures for this issue.
Third he was lazy & incompetent as even without procedures he should of had his own & it should not include just walking off.
So with guards like that I wouldn't want him armed. If he is going to be lazy or not bothered in this incident what is he going to be like when he has to use a firearm.
From a legal point of view whether soldier, police officer or private security when using firearms you need to not only know the Rules of Engagement(ROE's), but understand how they work in practise.
The military achieve this through BHL's/BHE's. Private security would have to do the same. That means using military instructors more as the majority of the current crop of instructors have little idea of true security but would struggle with the instructing required.
Another consideration is the weapons to be used.
With a pistol or revolver you only achieve the competency seen in the movies with hundreds of hours of practise. They are not that accurate especially when a person is your target not cardboard cut outs.
The Private industry will not have the budget for training that government agencies have (& in NZ they virtually could call themselves private companies for the amount allocated to use of firing live rounds. The army being the agency that uses them the most), so will need a weapon that needs minimum training & greater accuracy.
Therefore it is dangerous enough out there for Police to be pushing for firearms then the security industry needs to look at it too. But it needs to those with sufficient training.
A two day course is not enough. Even a two week course could be well short of the mark.
Where as a two hour refresher for ex military(teeth arms/special forces in particular) people is more than enough usually to switch them back on to the use of firearms.
Then you have to add in the training to understand ROE's, which again there is less of a requirement for ex military as they inherently understand them having trained & used them before.
So Police permanently armed? There is a good case for it, it is just the training required & the increase in numbers. But there is an equally good case for arming a small number of the private security industry.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Is more training for NZ police the Answer?
Kia Ora,
There is a comment the other day from Simon re the NZ police training more in particular with firearms.
Personally I don't think that is the answer as it has as much to do with the mindset needed to pull a trigger & understand where you fit in the equation to supply security. It also doesn't take into account the day to day policing requirements in NZ.
First many of the current police force I have spoken too, when they become aware that I worked in Iraq confide that they part they hated the most in police training was using firearms & that they could not do what we did in Iraq.
Secondly to just combat the current crime issues out there at present we would need to increase the police force by about three times. It has being estimated that 95% of crime is not reported currently in NZ.
At times I would day more. It is quite common for the police or security to stumble across crimes that have being going on for a while but no one has reported as they don't think the police are going to respond.
On top of that there is now quite evidently needed a force like the British SO 19 permanently armed police moving around ready to react. The current requirement to get AOS together, if you know what is happening, is like watching Keystone cops.
You can't have that happening when it is peoples lives.
That is not a criticism of the members of AOS, but of the system used to bring them together then disperse to an incident. The time taken is a joke.
In last few days whilst talking to someone on a business matter they raised an issue that they had heard from a third party & which plays into the terrorist stunt scenario.
The story goes that here in Christchurch a Muslim changed to a Christian church & related that there were many sleepers in the Christchurch community.
Now there was no clarification as to what they meant by sleepers whether that was in a security view of sleepers being possible jihadists or sleepers as in Muslims keeping a low profile because they are in what they perceive to be a predominantly Christian society.
I have seen the same in Christian groups where hard line Christians lower their profile by becoming part of a more moderate group.
Again the NZ mindset doesn't think that is possible in NZ. It is possible anywhere.
One other issue that has being brought to my attention over the last few days by a mate is the reaction at the time to the terrorist stunts.
There were claims by the stadiums that the terrorist stunts could of caused panic & injuries if not deaths.
As it was pointed out to me that is the stadiums saying they are not prepared for the real thing & have no procedures in place.
From personal experience carrying out security in our stadiums & major organizations over a number of years they have had no procedures or if they have them they have no idea what they are, or they are not current or they are completely wrong.
One major organization had as its bomb threat procedure hit the fire alarm.
Now for a bomb threat the reaction required is totally different than for a fire & the assembly places could need to be significantly different & even changeable.
I doubt that if I checked their again they have changed their procedures.
Another has, but they have not kept them updated for the new type of threat or even consider that normal terrorist threat could be present & therefore counter those tactics.
The other issue is even if they have a security presence on site, they are generally not even informed if there is a bomb threat.
True in NZ most of them would not know what to look for or to do, but before police are called in this respect someone has to carryout a preliminary check.
As the British found in Northern Ireland if you don't have the people on the ground trained in first recognition then a whole city can be tied up by false calls mixed with real ones.
In fact it was a comment made by a former member of the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) was that one IRA cell (usually about four people) could of tied up Baghdad because of the way the US forces were reacting to situations.
That reaction is no different than calling the police first in all instances.
In at least three incdents my military training has stopped the need to call police & secure the area.
If you find one & are awaiting police what can you do to secure the area & how far do you secure? What are the ballistic features of the possible bomb likely to be?
That extra training needs to be part of the normal security package, but most it amounts to seeing a package & calling the police. Usually from their cell phone which could easily detonate a bomb if it was one.
There is a comment the other day from Simon re the NZ police training more in particular with firearms.
Personally I don't think that is the answer as it has as much to do with the mindset needed to pull a trigger & understand where you fit in the equation to supply security. It also doesn't take into account the day to day policing requirements in NZ.
First many of the current police force I have spoken too, when they become aware that I worked in Iraq confide that they part they hated the most in police training was using firearms & that they could not do what we did in Iraq.
Secondly to just combat the current crime issues out there at present we would need to increase the police force by about three times. It has being estimated that 95% of crime is not reported currently in NZ.
At times I would day more. It is quite common for the police or security to stumble across crimes that have being going on for a while but no one has reported as they don't think the police are going to respond.
On top of that there is now quite evidently needed a force like the British SO 19 permanently armed police moving around ready to react. The current requirement to get AOS together, if you know what is happening, is like watching Keystone cops.
You can't have that happening when it is peoples lives.
That is not a criticism of the members of AOS, but of the system used to bring them together then disperse to an incident. The time taken is a joke.
In last few days whilst talking to someone on a business matter they raised an issue that they had heard from a third party & which plays into the terrorist stunt scenario.
The story goes that here in Christchurch a Muslim changed to a Christian church & related that there were many sleepers in the Christchurch community.
Now there was no clarification as to what they meant by sleepers whether that was in a security view of sleepers being possible jihadists or sleepers as in Muslims keeping a low profile because they are in what they perceive to be a predominantly Christian society.
I have seen the same in Christian groups where hard line Christians lower their profile by becoming part of a more moderate group.
Again the NZ mindset doesn't think that is possible in NZ. It is possible anywhere.
One other issue that has being brought to my attention over the last few days by a mate is the reaction at the time to the terrorist stunts.
There were claims by the stadiums that the terrorist stunts could of caused panic & injuries if not deaths.
As it was pointed out to me that is the stadiums saying they are not prepared for the real thing & have no procedures in place.
From personal experience carrying out security in our stadiums & major organizations over a number of years they have had no procedures or if they have them they have no idea what they are, or they are not current or they are completely wrong.
One major organization had as its bomb threat procedure hit the fire alarm.
Now for a bomb threat the reaction required is totally different than for a fire & the assembly places could need to be significantly different & even changeable.
I doubt that if I checked their again they have changed their procedures.
Another has, but they have not kept them updated for the new type of threat or even consider that normal terrorist threat could be present & therefore counter those tactics.
The other issue is even if they have a security presence on site, they are generally not even informed if there is a bomb threat.
True in NZ most of them would not know what to look for or to do, but before police are called in this respect someone has to carryout a preliminary check.
As the British found in Northern Ireland if you don't have the people on the ground trained in first recognition then a whole city can be tied up by false calls mixed with real ones.
In fact it was a comment made by a former member of the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) was that one IRA cell (usually about four people) could of tied up Baghdad because of the way the US forces were reacting to situations.
That reaction is no different than calling the police first in all instances.
In at least three incdents my military training has stopped the need to call police & secure the area.
If you find one & are awaiting police what can you do to secure the area & how far do you secure? What are the ballistic features of the possible bomb likely to be?
That extra training needs to be part of the normal security package, but most it amounts to seeing a package & calling the police. Usually from their cell phone which could easily detonate a bomb if it was one.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
What Happened? When?
Kia Ora,
Yet again NZ shows its propensity to collectively forget issues within a week. A week ago it was all the terrorist stunts, but by Tuesday you weren't hearing a thing.
Just to clarify the end of my last blog, as far as I know I didn't kill anyone in Iraq, but it was the mindset you had to be prepared for. Everytime you fired a warning shot you knew it could kill.
The point was you need the right mindset to pull the trigger & no one actually knows if they can do it when the time comes. Personally I would of fired over a hundred warning rounds into & at vehicles.
People will say that is easy. Is it? On one team we had a 'special forces' person who looked the part, knew martial arts, had all the best gear, but when it came time to fire a warning shot where the vehicle was seen approaching from about 2 km away at an estimated speed of 200 Kmh (quite common in Iraq) he failed. It was left to this plain infantryman three vehicles in front to fire.
Other news has being a NZ intelligience gathering group are to now focus inwardly as well in the lead up to the Rugby World cup.
The problem with electronic intelligience gathering is it only an aid for the humint & gut feeling of those on the street. Over realiance on it & you end up like the Americans with egg on their faces more often than not. They didn't listen to their soldiers on the street often enough.
Again though we see nothing has being learnt.
As I am typing this I am listening to the test cricket in Wellington & with the Aussie concerns over security in particular heightened after the revelation of the terrorist stunt & Michael Clarke's personal issues, a streaker has just run right across the field of play, side stepped a security guard, outrun all the rest & gone.
Now a streaker is not a terrorist attack, but there are basic strategies to combat this sort of activity that most security not only don't practice, they don't know.
True it also often comes to the client dictating the numbers because politicians are too weak to put in place formula's for minimum numbers of security required at events or even on task's.
As one ex army comrade said "now they have said they will not change the security requirements before the Rugby World Cup, then there is almost surely going to be an attack prior", & she was in the Dental Corp. But she understands security. Too bad more don't.
Yet again NZ shows its propensity to collectively forget issues within a week. A week ago it was all the terrorist stunts, but by Tuesday you weren't hearing a thing.
Just to clarify the end of my last blog, as far as I know I didn't kill anyone in Iraq, but it was the mindset you had to be prepared for. Everytime you fired a warning shot you knew it could kill.
The point was you need the right mindset to pull the trigger & no one actually knows if they can do it when the time comes. Personally I would of fired over a hundred warning rounds into & at vehicles.
People will say that is easy. Is it? On one team we had a 'special forces' person who looked the part, knew martial arts, had all the best gear, but when it came time to fire a warning shot where the vehicle was seen approaching from about 2 km away at an estimated speed of 200 Kmh (quite common in Iraq) he failed. It was left to this plain infantryman three vehicles in front to fire.
Other news has being a NZ intelligience gathering group are to now focus inwardly as well in the lead up to the Rugby World cup.
The problem with electronic intelligience gathering is it only an aid for the humint & gut feeling of those on the street. Over realiance on it & you end up like the Americans with egg on their faces more often than not. They didn't listen to their soldiers on the street often enough.
Again though we see nothing has being learnt.
As I am typing this I am listening to the test cricket in Wellington & with the Aussie concerns over security in particular heightened after the revelation of the terrorist stunt & Michael Clarke's personal issues, a streaker has just run right across the field of play, side stepped a security guard, outrun all the rest & gone.
Now a streaker is not a terrorist attack, but there are basic strategies to combat this sort of activity that most security not only don't practice, they don't know.
True it also often comes to the client dictating the numbers because politicians are too weak to put in place formula's for minimum numbers of security required at events or even on task's.
As one ex army comrade said "now they have said they will not change the security requirements before the Rugby World Cup, then there is almost surely going to be an attack prior", & she was in the Dental Corp. But she understands security. Too bad more don't.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Huge Change in mindset needed!
Kia ora,
Well the debate continues over the terrorist stunts carried out by a NZ newspaper.
When you read the articles they actually did very little but walk in with alcohol & minature explosives, gain access to restricted areas & dress up as construction workers on one occassion.
Yet the authorities have aimed their remarks at the reporters not on those who are to provide the security.
Their are comments that the security will be a lot different for the Rugby World Cup. Why should it be different then? In todays world the threat is always there. To be ready for the Rugby World Cup, the changes need to happen now, because the biggest change that has to occur is a mindset change.
One thing that was noticed in Iraq was former NZ soldiers fitted in well, but many former NZ police officers(without a military background) struggled initially with the change in mindset required.
Even as dangerous as the street of NZ have become with crime so random, it is still a huge change in mindset to be in an environment where you have to shoot to maybe kill & be aware that death may come from anywhere.
As one person I had quite a few dealings with in Iraq said "the west has already lost this war as these guys are committed".
Having, as the police organizer said " a heavy but low key presence" isn't going to work.
With the prospect of suicide bombers, you need to be meeting them at a distance from the objective. The tactics they use have being refined & adapted.
Thanks to briefings whilst in Iraq at the time of the attack on Abu Gharib, internet footage provied by the attackers & looking at past attacks it was easy to see the similarities in the attack on a prison in Afghanistan. This time it was successful.
These attacks are seldom carried out in isolation & they will come armed to get further in to their target.
That means meeting them at the furtherest point from the target.
It means with the police already overstreteched & undermanned, professional private security are required for the more in the face roles. Leave the polce to their jobs or specialist roles.
Experienced police officers both in & now out of the force, have being worried for sometime that what I have being talking about would happen & they are not ready.
How many of the current force are ready to shoot to kill? Even most soldiers over history have not actually shot to kill. It is more likely now, but pulling the trigger is not what everyone can do when the time comes.
At worst case & suicide bombers do show up, they are mission orientated & the only thing that will stop them is to kill them.
Harsh, but that is the fact of life. After 18 months of training how many of the current event security staff will be ready for the possability they could die?
About 1% I would say & they would be all ex military.
Security! In reality NZ is just playing at it.
Well the debate continues over the terrorist stunts carried out by a NZ newspaper.
When you read the articles they actually did very little but walk in with alcohol & minature explosives, gain access to restricted areas & dress up as construction workers on one occassion.
Yet the authorities have aimed their remarks at the reporters not on those who are to provide the security.
Their are comments that the security will be a lot different for the Rugby World Cup. Why should it be different then? In todays world the threat is always there. To be ready for the Rugby World Cup, the changes need to happen now, because the biggest change that has to occur is a mindset change.
One thing that was noticed in Iraq was former NZ soldiers fitted in well, but many former NZ police officers(without a military background) struggled initially with the change in mindset required.
Even as dangerous as the street of NZ have become with crime so random, it is still a huge change in mindset to be in an environment where you have to shoot to maybe kill & be aware that death may come from anywhere.
As one person I had quite a few dealings with in Iraq said "the west has already lost this war as these guys are committed".
Having, as the police organizer said " a heavy but low key presence" isn't going to work.
With the prospect of suicide bombers, you need to be meeting them at a distance from the objective. The tactics they use have being refined & adapted.
Thanks to briefings whilst in Iraq at the time of the attack on Abu Gharib, internet footage provied by the attackers & looking at past attacks it was easy to see the similarities in the attack on a prison in Afghanistan. This time it was successful.
These attacks are seldom carried out in isolation & they will come armed to get further in to their target.
That means meeting them at the furtherest point from the target.
It means with the police already overstreteched & undermanned, professional private security are required for the more in the face roles. Leave the polce to their jobs or specialist roles.
Experienced police officers both in & now out of the force, have being worried for sometime that what I have being talking about would happen & they are not ready.
How many of the current force are ready to shoot to kill? Even most soldiers over history have not actually shot to kill. It is more likely now, but pulling the trigger is not what everyone can do when the time comes.
At worst case & suicide bombers do show up, they are mission orientated & the only thing that will stop them is to kill them.
Harsh, but that is the fact of life. After 18 months of training how many of the current event security staff will be ready for the possability they could die?
About 1% I would say & they would be all ex military.
Security! In reality NZ is just playing at it.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Terrorist Stunt
Kia Ora,
Well done the Sunday Star-times. This is what I have being on about since returning from Iraq. NZ has just had its bubble burst by 14 people walking into Super 14 Rugby games & the security being so lax they actually got into players tunnels etc by all accounts.
Now all we hear is complaints that no one was told it was going to happen.
Wake up! Suicide bombers don't give warnings.
The problem is very few people here, apart from those of us who have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan, actually understand what they are facing.
An even bigger issue is the mindset of New Zealanders. The view that NZ is a safe place, means that no adequate protection is in place & people don't think it is required. I have just watched the Minister of Police say as much.
They need to get their collective head out of the sand. The MInister has no idea what she is talking about.
Because NZ is seen as a 'safe' place a terrorist attack here will have a greater impact both here & world wide than one in India or South Africa & will be much easier to carry out as shown by the undercover reporters.
Why do people think 9/11 has being so successful? Because the US at that stage thought like NZ that it was safe.
Funny thing is a later article on tonights news is about the Fire service being brought up to speed in light of 9/11.
Many immigrants agree with my assessment. It is just Kiwis who don't think it will ever happen. As a nation we tend to act the same way as the US post the Oklahoma bombing. Collective Amnesia. If we believe it won't happen, it won't.
The modern terrorist doesn't think in a normal thought process.
For one I beleive I have met at least one likely suicide bomber in this country & as I have said in a previous blog, most would be very surprised as to who that is.
Yes, I could wait until something happens. But the changes need to happen now! If lives are to be saved.
Well done the Sunday Star-times. This is what I have being on about since returning from Iraq. NZ has just had its bubble burst by 14 people walking into Super 14 Rugby games & the security being so lax they actually got into players tunnels etc by all accounts.
Now all we hear is complaints that no one was told it was going to happen.
Wake up! Suicide bombers don't give warnings.
The problem is very few people here, apart from those of us who have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan, actually understand what they are facing.
An even bigger issue is the mindset of New Zealanders. The view that NZ is a safe place, means that no adequate protection is in place & people don't think it is required. I have just watched the Minister of Police say as much.
They need to get their collective head out of the sand. The MInister has no idea what she is talking about.
Because NZ is seen as a 'safe' place a terrorist attack here will have a greater impact both here & world wide than one in India or South Africa & will be much easier to carry out as shown by the undercover reporters.
Why do people think 9/11 has being so successful? Because the US at that stage thought like NZ that it was safe.
Funny thing is a later article on tonights news is about the Fire service being brought up to speed in light of 9/11.
Many immigrants agree with my assessment. It is just Kiwis who don't think it will ever happen. As a nation we tend to act the same way as the US post the Oklahoma bombing. Collective Amnesia. If we believe it won't happen, it won't.
The modern terrorist doesn't think in a normal thought process.
For one I beleive I have met at least one likely suicide bomber in this country & as I have said in a previous blog, most would be very surprised as to who that is.
Yes, I could wait until something happens. But the changes need to happen now! If lives are to be saved.
Monday, March 8, 2010
OSH, the right Questions & more of the same.
Kia Ora,
It has being a while as there were many tasks on, but now back to a more sedate pace.
During that time though a few things have arisen.
First was the concert in Hawkesbay where a patron climbed a fence to get out, fell down a cliff & died.
So what has that got to do with security? Well first he was seen climbing the fence. Second as a patron of the concert there is still some responsibilbity for people as they leave or are in the vicinity of a venue. Last of all what started as a police investigation, quickly turned into an OSH investigation.
Recent discussions with an OSH inspector the following are the points that came up. 1. You must plan for worst case scenario you can think off even if it has never happened to you. (bit hard for me as having dealt with suicide bombers I now can't say they will never happen).
2. If say you are subcontractor & you have a part in the incident, they first look at your procedures. If they cover it well then they move onto the next group up the line. They carry on with this until either are satisfied that everything possible was done or they have someone who has not covered that particular eventuality.
In someways this is counter productive. With events in NZ, the first people they will look at are security, yet often even the good ones are hamstrung by failure of governments to regulate numbers required. So if my procedure is minimum of two guards as practiced overseas, but client thinks they only need one, apart from pointing out your requirement there is nothing you can do.
It is going to take a few more deaths before maybe someone will wake up to fact that maybe the international requirements for events have a reason behind it.
To the questions part of the title. Last week on Breakfast an international security person was being interviewed & Pippa Wetzel asked properly the best question of them all. "Don't we have to watch out where ever we are" or words to that effect.
Whilst the person was focussed on high risk areas, she repeated the question & I felt made a good point. Problem in NZ is locals & visitors put the blinkers on, as to what is actually happening on our streets.
Right next to me I have a clipping about the ACC bill for assaults on teachers at school these days. So Pippa,s question or point is relevant where ever you are in the world.
In the meantime I see we have introduced ground hog day with the re appointment of a University lecturer who the media go to for comments on security etc, but in reality has little or no understanding of security at a higher level.
Reading books, writing papers & analyzing the issues does not make you knowledgeable in the real world of security.
It has being a while as there were many tasks on, but now back to a more sedate pace.
During that time though a few things have arisen.
First was the concert in Hawkesbay where a patron climbed a fence to get out, fell down a cliff & died.
So what has that got to do with security? Well first he was seen climbing the fence. Second as a patron of the concert there is still some responsibilbity for people as they leave or are in the vicinity of a venue. Last of all what started as a police investigation, quickly turned into an OSH investigation.
Recent discussions with an OSH inspector the following are the points that came up. 1. You must plan for worst case scenario you can think off even if it has never happened to you. (bit hard for me as having dealt with suicide bombers I now can't say they will never happen).
2. If say you are subcontractor & you have a part in the incident, they first look at your procedures. If they cover it well then they move onto the next group up the line. They carry on with this until either are satisfied that everything possible was done or they have someone who has not covered that particular eventuality.
In someways this is counter productive. With events in NZ, the first people they will look at are security, yet often even the good ones are hamstrung by failure of governments to regulate numbers required. So if my procedure is minimum of two guards as practiced overseas, but client thinks they only need one, apart from pointing out your requirement there is nothing you can do.
It is going to take a few more deaths before maybe someone will wake up to fact that maybe the international requirements for events have a reason behind it.
To the questions part of the title. Last week on Breakfast an international security person was being interviewed & Pippa Wetzel asked properly the best question of them all. "Don't we have to watch out where ever we are" or words to that effect.
Whilst the person was focussed on high risk areas, she repeated the question & I felt made a good point. Problem in NZ is locals & visitors put the blinkers on, as to what is actually happening on our streets.
Right next to me I have a clipping about the ACC bill for assaults on teachers at school these days. So Pippa,s question or point is relevant where ever you are in the world.
In the meantime I see we have introduced ground hog day with the re appointment of a University lecturer who the media go to for comments on security etc, but in reality has little or no understanding of security at a higher level.
Reading books, writing papers & analyzing the issues does not make you knowledgeable in the real world of security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
