Like Lambs to the Slaughter!

Kia Ora,

Well security at the Commonwealth Games have hit the headlines again with an Australian 'Expert' saying there is a huge chance of terrorist attacks outside the venues.

The Australian Olympic Committee has followed its New Zealand counterpart & hit out at him. Dismissing his claims & basically saying it is under control.

So was he on the button?

Well what he has forecast is a high likelyhood but his prediction shows that he is most likely out of step with what has been happening.

On the other hand the consultant I spoke of a few blogs ago seemed to be up with the methods that terrorists have been using in the last few years. His focus was more on the games village to be used by the atheletes & I could visualize what he was talking about quite easily from experience. Whats more the TV images so far have backed up what he was saying.
The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to al-Qaeda
Meanwhile what of the 'Expert'?

His predicitons are more in line with what would happen in conjunction of an attack on a venue or the games village. That or, as was set up to happen when the embassy next to our villa in Baghdad was targeted by a suicide bomber, a series of IED's aimed at the emergency services responding to the initial incident. On that occassion those IED's failed to detonate.
Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind
Meanwhile the authorities continue to ignore Private security consultants whom might just know a lot more than the government lacky's.

That is not to say the games shouldn't go ahead, but there maybe needs to be a look at using the likes of PSD companies in conjunction with the authorities. In this situation experience is everything. Otherwise it really is like leading lambs to slaughter.

http://foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

What is Close Protections (Bodyguards) duties?

Kia Ora,

Well the big news today is the manhandling by the Chinese Vice Presidents Close Protection team of the Green Party leader who was staging a protest at the entrance to the New Zealand Parliament.

So what are really the duties that Close Protection are required to carry out?

In the movies it is always to give your life for someone, but in reality there is more than that & really what use is a bodyguard if they are dead? Body cover is a drill, but it is not just what you are there for & why more often than not your contract calls you a consultant.

There are three duties for a Close Protection team to consider.

First is the Preventing of Unintentional harm or injury.

So that means, if the 'Angry Man' is still reading, carrying out health & safety risk assessments both prior & during any moves, visits or in general, often without any prior visits. It also entails you knowing any medical conditions your client might have & have an understanding of local customs & laws that could put your client(known as a principal) in danger.

Next is Preventing Embarrassing Situations. Now todays incident can be seen two ways.

The team has brought the Vice President embarrassment by making it a media circus.

But that is the western view. The Chinese will have a very different view & whilst no expert on Chinese views, having learnt some Putonghua (standard Chinese) a few years ago which included some insight into the culture, they may view it very differently.

To the Chinese saving face is very big & having that flag shoved in the proximity of the Vice President could be seen as a loss of face. I thought their use of an umbrella was good & an attempt to show they are trying to fit in with western views.

The third duty is to Prevent Intentional Harm & Injury.

On the TV footage shown it would appear that the Green MP got far too close for the team to be comfortable.

New Zealanders have to realize that what might seem safe here is not what people overseas are used too.

I have meet some who refuse to come to NZ, as they think it is too unsafe as our police & security are unarmed.

As a country we are very reliant on amongst other things tourists coming here.

In an article yesterday it was commented on that quite a few foreign Heads of State are expected for the Rugby World Cup 2011. Just one we might be able to cater for but there has being a vast change in possible threat since APEC 1999 here.

Had this protest happened overseas it would of likely being much more controlled as indicated by the video clips that should be added below.

     http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

New Zealand is ready for the Rugby World Cup 2011. NOT!

Kia Ora,

Is New Zealand really ready to host the Rugby World Cup 2011? Not after another debacle over security I think not. A lot of fingers were being pointed at the police last night but they can't do everything it needs a change in mindset for the whole country.

This is the situation which eventuated last night, but has gone from the news services today.

A vehicle which had being sitting for days in a car park of a sports field according to residents, yet nothing was done until Tuesday when one resident called the police. They then showed up 24 hours later to find a bomb in the vehicle.

Compare that with Britain with their history of combating terrorism. My understanding of their actions is no vehicle is left sitting parked for more than 24 hours. Any residents would of called it in well before they did in Auckland.

Taking the item of the news services is too late. It got on there so it will be world wide, this the day after NZ was rated the most peaceful country in the world.

I understand a consultant being used for the World Cup is not a New Zealander & the assessment is all is safe & I think I have an idea who it is.

Thing is when assessing for threats such as possible suicide bombings are hard to picture if you have not lived in that environment. Those of us who have (alot of Kiwis), see the threat assessment as terrorist attacks & suicide bombings extremely likley either during or prior to the Rugby World Cup.

To combat a terrorist or terrorism you have to be able to think like them, that is something I have being accussed of more than once.

Currently in NZ there are a multitude of responses to likely bomb threats & I know talking to someone in a Government department that their response was totally lacking (being British they identified it but no one wants to know) where as Government department next door to them has a response in line with how terrorists think.

In NZ there seems to be a believe that you just deal with the one incident & it will be all Jake (OK).

But that is not standard operating procedure for any terrorist group. These current bomb alerts with hoax or simulated bombs or even real ones not properly set could just as well be the groups planning something seeing how NZ services, security industry & population react to such incidents.

They would then stage anther hoax or real bomb & plant seondary devices to catch in the first instance the emergency services, but also where people would be evacuated too.

This was the action taken in Northern Ireland in the Omagh bombing.

Even worse today is the suicide bomber.

The following was an incident in Iraq during my time there.

The Police Academy was mortared or rocketed on a daily basis, but on this occassion the bombers used this to their advantage as people were taking the same actions everyday.

Two bombers got into the Academy area (there has being some suggestion they bribed their way in past the check points) at breakfast time.

What then appears to have happened is one bomber lined up with the breakfast crowd before detonotating.

Everyone else thinking it was one of the regular mortar or rocket attacks ran to the shelters, where in one the other bomber was waiting, as people crowded in they then detonated their vest.

One thing noted in the NZ responses is the public are allowed to stand around at the cordons edge as a crowd.

All that has to be done here is work out where the cordons are likely to go in & plant devices for maximum effect.

Similar tactics were used when a 'suicide' bomb was detonated outside the embassy next to our villa in Iraq. The responding Iraqi police units later found three unexploded devices along the street, that had failed to explode as they responded to the incident.

Standard tactic with suicide bombers is two to three with short gaps in between or in the case of an attack on Abu Gharib at least seven other bombers. The difference with Abu Gharib was four were used to isolate the area then three others attempted to breach the camp, one after another.

New Zealand ready for the Rugby World Cup 2011? I think it is a long way from even being close.

                                                                 http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

Consultants. What defines them?

Kia Ora,

Well still no word from 'Mr Angry' over my post yesterday.

But I do thank all those who sent messages of support. I really appreaciate them in particular from former military comrades & people I worked alongside in Iraq with, some who do have 'formal qualifications' & have done the hard yards.

At least they have given me something to write about. For the next few days I will go more in depth into what the issues are.

One of the main gripes was I was not a consultant.

So what defines a  security consultant?

 First there is the consultant I was contractored as in Iraq. As one mate found out & as I said as was pointed out to me, you were only there in some roles to advise & where therefore contracted as a consultant.

One mate lost his position for taking physical action because he felt it was too dangerous for the clients. Major news crews hire people as consultants, not specifically as bodyguards. They can ignore the consultants advice & more often than not those they employ come from one company whose operators experience is way in advance of my own.

But I am able to claim that I have & can work as a security consultant & I don't need a bit of paper to do so.

Of course there is the other more traditional view of a consultant, which is the person who carries out a security survey, then produces a nicely written assessment of what they think needs to be carried out to ensure the security of a premises or person.

This also is only advice which can be & is often ignored.

Again due to military qualifications, training & experience I can do that to a very high standard if asked. So can any person who was in the NZ military after they have gone through certain stages of their training.

In the last 12 months an experienced security consultant (of both types) has been trying to get me to stop giving out tips for free & focus on the consultancy role for which they believe I have the experience & knowledge to carryout this to a high degree.

Outside NZ, ex NZ military are considered extremely highly in the private security world & it is not based on a bit of paper.

Though if I do carryout a consultancy expect somethings outside the square.

For example when my runanga built our Marae I offered some security advise based on what the discussions were at the time.

Someone else spoke to a security consultant at the time who waffled on about alarms etc.

Like many Marae & Maori communities this is extremely isolated & in fact in 1906 was said to be the most isolated Maori community in NZ. Road goes through now but still isolated. No cell phone coverage, limited TV channels unless you go for Sky, internet is by satellite & it is only in the last 25 years that diesel generators have gone(though we have an emergency one at the Marae). 

Alarms are not a real option even if they were directed to someones house. You just never know if anyone is going to be in. Not to mention the weather plays havoc with them if wireless & if hardwired same issue plus having to lay wire through a swamp.

So down there you need to look more at using the ground to enhance security.

Some of my suggestions were using Geese instead of the proposed Dogs, gravel driveway as opposed to sealed, extending the ditches along roadside around the Marae site, then building old style pallisades to assist with fact it was built in a swamp.

In other words it was just like been in the army. Make use of the ground to benefit you or your client in this case.

Not all ideas were taken up, but that is fine.

As I said in yesterday's post, basically I can claim to be a consultant but it is not my focus. It is why I split the company in two. One side can do those areas if required, the newer one is focused on basic security, which in NZ is where we need to get it up to speed first. It is well away from that at present.

Anyway a blog is just opinion & I write mine based on experience in the NZ army, NZ security industry, working in Iraq, where I see the threats to NZ society & what we have to do to bring it up to a minimum level.

                                           http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz

What are Qualifications worth?

Kia Ora,

Well have just had three firey  anonymous emails from someone questioning my qualifications to write these blogs. They then have threatened to publish elsewhere if I don't allow their emails to be put on my blog.

Well I won't because they don't have the guts to put their name to it, but I will respond & also point out some facts they have wrong.

The first thing they question is my formal qualifications. I do have some, but in the real world that is just slavery & those with them work for those without in the end.

But as to my qualifications. First I came from the military which is the highest level of security.  Those qualifications are obtained at a much higher standard than any I have seen in civvy street.

On leaving I completed NZQA courses. First thing I was told when I went to sign up was "f... off, you are overqualified", but been in a new environment I decided to do it anyway. I should of listened as most of it was a waste of time.

Those same people then told me to start my own company as my standards were too high for security in NZ. Again I should of listened as they were right & I was wrong.

Later I attended a security meeting where they were promoting level 6 NZQA to be introduced. But on looking at it, I had carried it to a higher level in the Infantry than those who would have to have it in the industry.

SIA I wouldn't of minded getting their qualifications, but now it is about actually getting on the ground & getting things going. You don't combat crime in the classroom.

Within my companies anyone with NZQA or any qualifications will not be looked at unless they have either the experience (mainly military) or mindset to back it up.

OSH again just carry it on from how we practised in the military. Security is no different & in fact that came out in Iraq on numerous occassions as risk assessment was very fluid. It had to be as so was the threat.

I have talked to OSH over this from moment I formed my company, their take was they couldn't believe some of the things carried out by security companies in the name of OSH i.e. wearing fluro jackets in a bank.
I have asked them how do we assess risk in your books? My understanding of it is worst case scenario you can think of even if it hasn't happened to you.

Their reply is correct & I even was able to correct them on something.

So worst case I have been close too is three VBIED's & arrived shortly after one or two other suicide bombings. So I have to aim my risk assessment there & have procedures for that level.

You don't need a bit of paper when your culture (from the military) is continous risk assessment. In fact because it is on going I was asked would I like to join a group looking at that, as there had been serious accidents because people were not identifying risks when entering new areas.


The anonymous emailer goes on about formal qualifications. Obviously someone who has brought into the modern slavery. Qualifications are Ok as I have said if they have the practical experience to go with it.

Captain Wallingford whose machine guns held the Nek on the first day at Gallipoli did so effectively because he was able to apply both the theory of machine gun fire & being a farmer, the practical assessment of the land to deny the Turkish forces almost certain victory on the first day.

As to the writers claims that I was only a gunner, not a consultant in Iraq, he needs to get his facts right.

My first contract was as a 'consultant' & was posted as part of the 'bodyguard' team or as I called it the 'suicide stay behind squad'. Because one or two of us would be left behind with multiple clients.

It was made very clear we were consultants after I made a client put on his body armour to visit an area that was dodgy at the time. As consultants we were only allowed to advise, not enforce safety precautions.

My next contract was as a driver & member of an Armed protetion team & then on the main contract I was a driver, vehicle commander (as it was designated) & at times yes, rear gunner. I was also radio operator & for a while team intelligence gatherer as that is something I like. It is also always been a strength being able to see things others couldn't.

In NZ up until now I have given security advice freely & often told off for it as I was giving too much to the industry, who don't have a clue as they have never been at those levels. I was advised I should be marketing myself as a consultant as that is what I do for all intent purposes, but it is not something I focus on.

The last point this individual argues about is the fact I also write blogs on financial matters & only those with formal education should do that.

Dr Cullen the previous Minister of Finance had a doctorate in history, but he never learnt the most important history & that is financial.

Dr Dolf de Roos on the other hand has a degree in engineering, but because when he first began studying for his degree, he realized those with them are not the ones with money he studied what was the common demoninator for the rich. In the end he came up with property.

He kept studying as it was free at the time & he built his property portfolio in the meantime. To this day he has never used that degree. He took that subject because he decided that after looking at all other areas, he didn't like blood & everything else followed a set pattern. Engineering solved problems just like investing.

What I know about  the financial area comes from him, Robert Kiyosaki, Donald Trump, Richard Branson & many other like minded people. Most do not have degrees or if they do it was for a certain reason.

To them you do not need any formal education. In fact it is a hinderance.

In security, finance or any other area I will favour experience over a bit of paper.

I know for instance that most people coming off level 3 NZQA courses these days actually know very little about security. One even said I learnt nothing compared to what I have learnt working alongside experienced staff.

That is not to say degrees etc don't have their place.

Just seems to me we are repeating the mistakes of history again. When academics thought they were better than everyone else in 2500BC it destroyed Ionian society which up to then had flourished as all areas were seen as equal.

Or as Winston Churchill said "the further back we look, the further forward we see".

So I can see forward & are working on making that work for me. I don't need qualifications to do it as my experience tells what I think is right. Not always going to be right but then that is the main way people learn.

Not in the classroom. That is shown  in the cone of learning. You learn the least in lectures or through reading, most through doing to simulation.

                                           http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz