Kia Ora,
With the on going bad weather it seemed to at least in my area cut down incidents.
But some of the things going on this last week showed how little New Zealanders actually have a culture of risk assesment.
Of all the cultures in the world the worst I come across in this respect is everytime I return home. It seems to be getting worse.
The mindset is totally wrong in this country. What we see time & time again in security is that people seem to think those warning signs are for everybody but them.
The incidents this week were people ignored road closed signs, removed or moved them was just idiotic, even having to result in the police in arresting one person at least.
We often joke that if it was ten foot high neon & flashing, Kiwis would still think it is for everyone else but them.
It is not just a one off either. We see it on our roads were nice quiet people take undue risks.
The following two incidents probably best give the attitude to safety & the mindset of New Zealanders to their health & safety as well as that of those they supposedly care about.
Twenty minutes was all that was between these two incidents.
Based in a fenced area where fireworks were to be set up (they were on site) with signs on the fences saying explosives keep out.
The first incident just blew me away. A couple with two children aged about 3 or 4 moved the end of the fence & entered the area.
When challenged the response was the standard "use some commonsense you idiot, it is the shortest route". There was the question asked as if they were fit parents to be bringing young children into an area signposted as dangerous.
The second incident was four 20 something's with two males & two females climbing the fence.
Again challenged, again the same answer. When it was pointed out that they had climbed a fence with signs saying "Explosives! Keep Out!" Their response was "where didn't see one?" "You climbed over one."
From there their reaction was again normal Kiwi. It was your fault & we are going to smash you & keep going anyway. Just happened to be their bad day as at the end of the area there was a security briefing in progress combined with police elements.
Now we all do silly things at times, but there needs to be a huge change in mindset.
But that mindset comes back to why it is so hard for the NZ security industry to actually carryout a true risk assessment for events such as the Rugby World Cup 2011.
It is also why it is hard to convince the industry to adopt a risk assessment culture that is dynamic & on going as they walk into situations.
It does not mean we don't do anything. If we did risk assessment in the way NZ does we would of never gone out on task in Iraq. There was a risk, we knew it, but by again having that dynamic risk assessment as we moved along, you mitigated your risk.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Who is going down with the ship?
Kia Ora,
An interesting few days & few discussions in amongst been very busy.
First is a discussion with someone much more experienced & qualified than me who has had to carry out a number of courses to be 'recognized' in the NZ industry, even though those courses do not come anywhere near his military training or experience.
Our conversation turned to the Rugby World Cup 2011 & the training required to get the NZ industry up to standard required.
He related that recently he had run some simulations for someone & when they through in terrorist situations, no one knew what to do.
Basically it is not just the training that is needed it is, as I have said before, a change in mindset & for that you don't need a bit of paper, but real time training & practice.
In short at this point in time the only way NZ will be ready is by making the standard only ex NZ, British or South African military or ex British or South African Police to begin with.
The hardest part of the mindset comes from the fact that NZ does not see itself as a terrorist target or had many attacks, so in the industries minds eye the worst they can see is some drunken brawls & maybe a bomb threat or two(even then they are not ready).
With Terrorism it is too late once it has happened to think about training or changing the mindset, but it seems that something has to occur before it will happen here.
Today there was an article in the "Press" about a recent release of the US military's vision of the future issues.
It wasn't rocket science to work a lot of it out & in fact much of it says exactly what I have been saying in these blogs. You just look at history & it shows you what is going to happen.
To quote Winston Churchill again "the further back you look, the further forward you see." Just the tools used change.
One point it makes is one I have been on about since leaving the army & entering the NZ security industry.
More & more they see a convergence of the criminal activities of Organized crime & Terrorists.
That directly relates to the mindset of the NZ security industry which constantly tells it's people to ignore crime or suspicious activity.
Terrorist attacks are preceded by criminal or suspicious activity either by the terrorists or someone such as organized crime. Crime is also seen to more often in the future to been used to finance terrorist operations sine the world is now activily looking for connections to finance.
So if you impact crime & suspicious activity, then you impact on the ability for terrorist networks to operate.
It happens to some extent at times here in Christchurch where the boy racers are attracting the attention whilst in the background criminal elements are carrying out crimes. They have often been given drugs as part of the arrangement & this was known to be going on in 2001.
How do we know all this, because good training coupled with experience in the industry & that gained in particular by the British in Northern Ireland & expanded on by experience in Iraq, show one that it happens & two we can counter much of it by good basic security with a good mindset. Something lacking in the NZ industry at present.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
An interesting few days & few discussions in amongst been very busy.
First is a discussion with someone much more experienced & qualified than me who has had to carry out a number of courses to be 'recognized' in the NZ industry, even though those courses do not come anywhere near his military training or experience.
Our conversation turned to the Rugby World Cup 2011 & the training required to get the NZ industry up to standard required.
He related that recently he had run some simulations for someone & when they through in terrorist situations, no one knew what to do.
Basically it is not just the training that is needed it is, as I have said before, a change in mindset & for that you don't need a bit of paper, but real time training & practice.
In short at this point in time the only way NZ will be ready is by making the standard only ex NZ, British or South African military or ex British or South African Police to begin with.
The hardest part of the mindset comes from the fact that NZ does not see itself as a terrorist target or had many attacks, so in the industries minds eye the worst they can see is some drunken brawls & maybe a bomb threat or two(even then they are not ready).
With Terrorism it is too late once it has happened to think about training or changing the mindset, but it seems that something has to occur before it will happen here.
Today there was an article in the "Press" about a recent release of the US military's vision of the future issues.
It wasn't rocket science to work a lot of it out & in fact much of it says exactly what I have been saying in these blogs. You just look at history & it shows you what is going to happen.
To quote Winston Churchill again "the further back you look, the further forward you see." Just the tools used change.
One point it makes is one I have been on about since leaving the army & entering the NZ security industry.
More & more they see a convergence of the criminal activities of Organized crime & Terrorists.
That directly relates to the mindset of the NZ security industry which constantly tells it's people to ignore crime or suspicious activity.
Terrorist attacks are preceded by criminal or suspicious activity either by the terrorists or someone such as organized crime. Crime is also seen to more often in the future to been used to finance terrorist operations sine the world is now activily looking for connections to finance.
So if you impact crime & suspicious activity, then you impact on the ability for terrorist networks to operate.
It happens to some extent at times here in Christchurch where the boy racers are attracting the attention whilst in the background criminal elements are carrying out crimes. They have often been given drugs as part of the arrangement & this was known to be going on in 2001.
How do we know all this, because good training coupled with experience in the industry & that gained in particular by the British in Northern Ireland & expanded on by experience in Iraq, show one that it happens & two we can counter much of it by good basic security with a good mindset. Something lacking in the NZ industry at present.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Why do People do it?
Kia Ora,
Why do people do it? That is get involved in an accident then run!
In the last two days with the bad weather there have been two hit & run accidents.
True the first person was wanted by police, realized they were turning to chase him, but once he knocked down an 80 year old woman you would think the crimes would be in the back of his mind.
Initial reports were the police weren't even in sight.
But then I suppose you can't expect that much these days after reading that burglars had twice hit a community groups shop. They are only trying to help people.
Then this morning comes the report of a cyclist killed in a hit & run on the outskirts of Christchurch.
With the weather over the last few days you would think people would be heeding the police call to drive to the conditions.
I didn't even have to go far to see bad driving. Heard someones brakes then a vehicle sliding & bang. Right outside the office. Most people would of looked at the young guy who was driving the highpowered car as a bad driver & most do take this corner too fast (50 km area but many approach at a 100kmh & in dry weather you see all the brakes go on), only this time the vehicle he hit was on this side of the centre line, as the vehicles coming the other way are usually speeding too & keep cutting the corner.
No injuries but really one for the police to sort out as sure each side would think the other is in the wrong.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Why do people do it? That is get involved in an accident then run!
In the last two days with the bad weather there have been two hit & run accidents.
True the first person was wanted by police, realized they were turning to chase him, but once he knocked down an 80 year old woman you would think the crimes would be in the back of his mind.
Initial reports were the police weren't even in sight.
But then I suppose you can't expect that much these days after reading that burglars had twice hit a community groups shop. They are only trying to help people.
Then this morning comes the report of a cyclist killed in a hit & run on the outskirts of Christchurch.
With the weather over the last few days you would think people would be heeding the police call to drive to the conditions.
I didn't even have to go far to see bad driving. Heard someones brakes then a vehicle sliding & bang. Right outside the office. Most people would of looked at the young guy who was driving the highpowered car as a bad driver & most do take this corner too fast (50 km area but many approach at a 100kmh & in dry weather you see all the brakes go on), only this time the vehicle he hit was on this side of the centre line, as the vehicles coming the other way are usually speeding too & keep cutting the corner.
No injuries but really one for the police to sort out as sure each side would think the other is in the wrong.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Another senseless Tragedy!
Kia Ora,
Another weekend & another senseless tragedy.
Finished up the day shift of new service & living in a business area could hear & see the vehicles all leaving. As usual the traffic was backed up past the base, the roads were wet & then you hear the idiots leaving work in their souped up vehicles, trying to drift, do burn outs or just being idiots.
So as readied gear for the night it came over the news that a child had been killed. First reports included an interview with an eyewitness who said it appeared car had been drifitng.
The police of course have to be very careful in what they say as it is an on going investigation.
Claims are now been made that the driver would not drift in the amount of traffic around. Well they do outside where I am based with traffic at times nose to tail, so what is so different about him?
The other of course is that he is a nice person. Unfortunately NZ is full of nice people who are idiots when they get behind a steering wheel.
So the question needs to be asked is it this young guys fault or one of our society, where aggressive driving is the norm?
On the following night it showed that even if the person in question hadn't been drifiting, the lesson had not got through to the boyracer crowd.
Whilst driving to check out an area covered by the new 0900 service, I along with other traffic were forced to stop as an idiot decided to use a roundabout to go drifting around.
Well Buddy your personalized plate was easy to take down & is now in process of being reported to the police.
As I write this I have been adding to the left drivers education material from the US, I would say (I am not allowed to click those I add to stop fraudalent use of the system). When you visit places like the US you notice how good the driving is compared to NZ & I would say the main reason is the driver educaiton offered as part of their school system.
Probably the best driving overall I have seen was in Iraq, as there were virtually no rules & so the drivers had to be very aware of all going on around them.
That is not to say there weren't incidents as years of sanctions had resulted in many vehicle's being of dubious quality. One call over the radio was even to look at a car where the driver appeared to be using the Fred Flinstone method of stopping with his feet through the floor boards.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Another weekend & another senseless tragedy.
Finished up the day shift of new service & living in a business area could hear & see the vehicles all leaving. As usual the traffic was backed up past the base, the roads were wet & then you hear the idiots leaving work in their souped up vehicles, trying to drift, do burn outs or just being idiots.
So as readied gear for the night it came over the news that a child had been killed. First reports included an interview with an eyewitness who said it appeared car had been drifitng.
The police of course have to be very careful in what they say as it is an on going investigation.
Claims are now been made that the driver would not drift in the amount of traffic around. Well they do outside where I am based with traffic at times nose to tail, so what is so different about him?
The other of course is that he is a nice person. Unfortunately NZ is full of nice people who are idiots when they get behind a steering wheel.
So the question needs to be asked is it this young guys fault or one of our society, where aggressive driving is the norm?
On the following night it showed that even if the person in question hadn't been drifiting, the lesson had not got through to the boyracer crowd.
Whilst driving to check out an area covered by the new 0900 service, I along with other traffic were forced to stop as an idiot decided to use a roundabout to go drifting around.
Well Buddy your personalized plate was easy to take down & is now in process of being reported to the police.
As I write this I have been adding to the left drivers education material from the US, I would say (I am not allowed to click those I add to stop fraudalent use of the system). When you visit places like the US you notice how good the driving is compared to NZ & I would say the main reason is the driver educaiton offered as part of their school system.
Probably the best driving overall I have seen was in Iraq, as there were virtually no rules & so the drivers had to be very aware of all going on around them.
That is not to say there weren't incidents as years of sanctions had resulted in many vehicle's being of dubious quality. One call over the radio was even to look at a car where the driver appeared to be using the Fred Flinstone method of stopping with his feet through the floor boards.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Saturday, May 22, 2010
How do you use Standard Operating Procedures(SOP's)?
Kia Ora,
So if you have them "How do you use Standard Operating Procedures?" & in that mix is why?
This comes back to the remark I made in the previous blog about my civilian counterparts commenting on how fast I thought.
At that site it all come down to their experience as there was no training given (& still isn't from comments of people there, training consisted of two days orientation) & there were no SOP's.
I have said it before in these blogs an SOP is a guideline, not something that must always be adhered to as they do not fit every situation.
It was a point made to me by an ex army comrade at this complex & also came up more recently in the review of the Stanmore Road shooting by the police officer involved. The officer was criticized for not following SOP's.
A SOP is formed based on experience (theres that word again) for given situations, but will not cover every situation.
But by basing your training on them or even just having them & ensuring they are understood puts your staff way ahead of the rest.
That was why it appears at times when things are going real bad that former military or police think faster than their civilian counterparts. In most NZ security companies they have no SOP's, so in lieu of that I know ex military personal come up with their own & each time they face a situation they formulate their own adhoc SOP's for similar situations.
When a situation is fast moving,those used to an SOP or that actually have them in place will automatically in their mind have gone through the steps & coming to say step four think, it doesn't fit this situation so next? The mind is already working & possible solutions are presenting themselves, where as those without them if they have never encountered such a situation will still be thinking of step one.
So this then comes back to what my ex army comrade said & the reaction to the police officer using his weapon.
My mates comment was we don't want SOP's here as they don't understand how they work & will make them the bottom line.
You see that report on the police officer using his firearm. As an experienced police officer he has used his experience listening to what came over the radio & put himself in a position to be nearby if requried.
Because the individual in question was known to be using a type of weapon ( a hammer) the officer has obviously thought of worst case scenario & armed himself. Not been prepared to order his officers to do something he himself is not prepared to do.
It also comes into question over risk assessment & his health & safety responsibilities.
As a police officer his duty is to protect the public & with no Tasers available at the time, he had to be prepared to use what was at his disposal.
He is said to have broken two SOP's, not informing Police comms where he was & not informing them he was arming himself.
So they are trying to make a SOP a bottom line & taking away the ability of those on the ground of making a decision based on factors in front of them.
It also flies in the face of facts.
Fact is criminals listen to the police radio & it is only recently that the police have started to use secure communications.
There used to be in Christchurch a well known police dog handler (happens to be ex army, equally well known in part for shooting the Tiger, although he claims it was his twin brother) who was well known for his trick of continually asking comms for directions to the place he was needed. He did this because he knew criminals listened in & more than one was surprised by a dog unit pulling up that was allegedly still some distance away.
Good training & SOP's can also have a great effect when team works well together with little communication. People can form what in business is refered to as a master mind, where the combined minds seem to think as one.
The two times that really stick out for me was in the army during training although I did also experience it in Iraq & at times here in NZ in security.
In the first instance not a word was said as I turned to give a command as a situation developed it was obvious all were thinking the same & from the enemy party during debrief, who were thinking they were about to surprise someone else, got the shock of their lives when 8 of us appeared on their flank.
In the second incident it involved four words(his name & yeah got it) between myself & another section commander whom I had worked with over the years. But because our sections understood us, that was all it needed. Again the enemy party said they were totally surprised. From a health & safety aspect though a third party who shouldn't of taken action, did & in reality were probably shot by friendly fire.
That last part I find with many security groups in NZ. It is a common comment heard from ex military about these groups is they don't know team work & you don't feel safe.
It is not uncommon to have a situation develop where every other security person seems to be avoiding looking to back you, compared to the military where everyone backs you.
It comes down to health & safety again.
So in answer to the 'angry man' I am well qualified to comment on these areas thanks to superior training, experience, some common sense, knowledge & the fact I work in the industry & see how bad it is. I also see what has to be done & have the vision to see opportunities.
Those factors outweigh any formal course or piece of paper. A blog is an opinion, mine is based on facts, common sense, experience & anybody can have an opinion.
Or as they say opinions are like rear ends everyone has one, some people just are one. Seems to me this person is trying to restrict my legal rights of freedom of speech.
I will answer his comments about my comments as to financial issues on one of those blogs.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
So if you have them "How do you use Standard Operating Procedures?" & in that mix is why?
This comes back to the remark I made in the previous blog about my civilian counterparts commenting on how fast I thought.
At that site it all come down to their experience as there was no training given (& still isn't from comments of people there, training consisted of two days orientation) & there were no SOP's.
I have said it before in these blogs an SOP is a guideline, not something that must always be adhered to as they do not fit every situation.
It was a point made to me by an ex army comrade at this complex & also came up more recently in the review of the Stanmore Road shooting by the police officer involved. The officer was criticized for not following SOP's.
A SOP is formed based on experience (theres that word again) for given situations, but will not cover every situation.
But by basing your training on them or even just having them & ensuring they are understood puts your staff way ahead of the rest.
That was why it appears at times when things are going real bad that former military or police think faster than their civilian counterparts. In most NZ security companies they have no SOP's, so in lieu of that I know ex military personal come up with their own & each time they face a situation they formulate their own adhoc SOP's for similar situations.
When a situation is fast moving,those used to an SOP or that actually have them in place will automatically in their mind have gone through the steps & coming to say step four think, it doesn't fit this situation so next? The mind is already working & possible solutions are presenting themselves, where as those without them if they have never encountered such a situation will still be thinking of step one.
So this then comes back to what my ex army comrade said & the reaction to the police officer using his weapon.
My mates comment was we don't want SOP's here as they don't understand how they work & will make them the bottom line.
You see that report on the police officer using his firearm. As an experienced police officer he has used his experience listening to what came over the radio & put himself in a position to be nearby if requried.
Because the individual in question was known to be using a type of weapon ( a hammer) the officer has obviously thought of worst case scenario & armed himself. Not been prepared to order his officers to do something he himself is not prepared to do.
It also comes into question over risk assessment & his health & safety responsibilities.
As a police officer his duty is to protect the public & with no Tasers available at the time, he had to be prepared to use what was at his disposal.
He is said to have broken two SOP's, not informing Police comms where he was & not informing them he was arming himself.
So they are trying to make a SOP a bottom line & taking away the ability of those on the ground of making a decision based on factors in front of them.
It also flies in the face of facts.
Fact is criminals listen to the police radio & it is only recently that the police have started to use secure communications.
There used to be in Christchurch a well known police dog handler (happens to be ex army, equally well known in part for shooting the Tiger, although he claims it was his twin brother) who was well known for his trick of continually asking comms for directions to the place he was needed. He did this because he knew criminals listened in & more than one was surprised by a dog unit pulling up that was allegedly still some distance away.
Good training & SOP's can also have a great effect when team works well together with little communication. People can form what in business is refered to as a master mind, where the combined minds seem to think as one.
The two times that really stick out for me was in the army during training although I did also experience it in Iraq & at times here in NZ in security.
In the first instance not a word was said as I turned to give a command as a situation developed it was obvious all were thinking the same & from the enemy party during debrief, who were thinking they were about to surprise someone else, got the shock of their lives when 8 of us appeared on their flank.
In the second incident it involved four words(his name & yeah got it) between myself & another section commander whom I had worked with over the years. But because our sections understood us, that was all it needed. Again the enemy party said they were totally surprised. From a health & safety aspect though a third party who shouldn't of taken action, did & in reality were probably shot by friendly fire.
That last part I find with many security groups in NZ. It is a common comment heard from ex military about these groups is they don't know team work & you don't feel safe.
It is not uncommon to have a situation develop where every other security person seems to be avoiding looking to back you, compared to the military where everyone backs you.
It comes down to health & safety again.
So in answer to the 'angry man' I am well qualified to comment on these areas thanks to superior training, experience, some common sense, knowledge & the fact I work in the industry & see how bad it is. I also see what has to be done & have the vision to see opportunities.
Those factors outweigh any formal course or piece of paper. A blog is an opinion, mine is based on facts, common sense, experience & anybody can have an opinion.
Or as they say opinions are like rear ends everyone has one, some people just are one. Seems to me this person is trying to restrict my legal rights of freedom of speech.
I will answer his comments about my comments as to financial issues on one of those blogs.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
How do you practice Health & Safety?
Kia Ora,
To the next part of the issues raised by the angry man's emails is basically "How do you practice Health & Safety?"
He asks what are my systems for health & safety? Also having no qualification does not entitle me to comment on health & safety issues. That is probably the crux of the issue there.
This individual dimisses my experience from the military, in the NZ security industry & work in Iraq.
Health & safety especially in a service like security does not rely just on a system. In fact due to nature of the work carried out by the profession what is more important is Common Sense coupled with Experience (not a bit of paper or formal course) & a culture of dynamic Risk Assessment.
The type of Risk Assessment you get trained to carryout in the NZ military. From early days young soldiers get told "as you move along look for places to take cover if such & such happens" it is a type of Risk Assessment.
Initially though young soldiers are more concerned about how hard the physical requirements are, but as time goes by those sort of actions become second nature.
They then add in actions like looking for possible booby traps when moving whilst carrying up to 100kg plus packs without having to go through the whole process consciously.
So does this transfer to the civilian environment? Yes!
In fact, & I will go into this more in a later blog, at times other security personal have said "I think so fast", it is not that, but my military training kicking in when situations call for it, which often means when confronted with an issue they have never confronted before.
Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety - CD-Rom
With inadeaquate training or awaremess of health & saftey instinctively, my civilian counterparts are still thinking of the first step whilst myself & army comrades are already on step four or higher. So it appears to them that we are thinking very fast.
An example of the level of military training over what the industry provides was an incident early in my time in the industry.
I was on duty in a complex when I was paged to reception & handed a small case. Apparently someone was concerned it had been sitting in the middle of reception for three hours. Of course from the staff reaction it appeared they thought it was a bomb. Straight away I knew there was one type of bomb it wasn't.
When I was relieved a few hours later by another ex military person, his first reaction was "you didn't call the bomb squad?". No, because of our superior training as soon as I was handed it the check list we used to use in the army popped right into my head.
As I walked outside with the case, I ran through it & realized there was no way this was a bomb. The only mistake I made was opening in view of the staff, from a health & safety point of view which was not good.
That staff still thought it was a bomb was shown by fact that even though it was dark t they were watching & as I opened it, were seen to dive under the counter.
From there another difference came out between a person with a military background to those without. Not for the first time after an incident that worked out well, my civilian counterparts could not work out why myself or any military person would then look to learn from lessons & improve our performance for the next time.
Whilst in Iraq this dynamic way of looking at things was to the fore as the whole situation & threats were ever changing your risk assessment was also dynamic. It was health & safety at its extreme. But again that good training kicked in without much fuss.
Security in NZ requires much the same thinking as any Standard Operating Procedures will not cover all contingencies. Thats if the company has them.
During my initial NZQA security course (a well run one with plenty of hands on training unlike most courses) the question was asked of an OSH inspector as to where security fitted in since much of the industries work fell outside OSH at that time. Also that many places had procedures but no body actually knew what they were.
The reply was that is correct, but security's role was to identify hazards as encountered & report them. They then directed their reply to me & said as ex army you know the drills if there is an accident happens during live firing? Yes of course. Well that is the OSH procedure for an accident.
More recently an incident involving an associtated industry responding to a call out & a serious accident occuring due to the fact that like security they entered a business without prior knowledge of it.
After discussion with a Health & Safety officer from the department of Labour at a business seminar, I was asked would I be interested in joining a group looking at this issue. To date though nothing has come of it.
But the discussion had been about how the military teach you, as I said in the beginning to have a dynamic risk assessment culture, this is what they felt they needed to install in industries who respond to premises they don't usually visit or are not fully aware of all dangers.
This culture far outways any system or piece of paper, although in conjunction with a system can be very robust.
Due to time contraints it is not unusual, in fact most common place to see security racing from one premises to another without slowing to take in account as to risks they maybe rushing too.
Someone who worked security in Australia once told me a story about their first night alone. They were rushing due to time, came around a corner to be confronted by three pers wanting his firearm. He hadn't yet being issued or been able to obtain one.
It reminded me what I often see with NZ security racing around corners to you don't know what.
My assessments of the security situation here in NZ is based on security knowledge, experience & risk assessment.
I have often been told & more so recently by some I worked alongside in Iraq, we can all see it coming, don't wear yourself out trying to educate people. When these things happen if you set yourself up correctly, then we will be able to walk in as the industry here has no idea what it is doing.
Occupational Health at Work
Personally I believe in trying to stop it from happening here & making the place truly safe to live in. To do that you have to ensure the basic security & Health & Safety are taken care off.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
To the next part of the issues raised by the angry man's emails is basically "How do you practice Health & Safety?"
He asks what are my systems for health & safety? Also having no qualification does not entitle me to comment on health & safety issues. That is probably the crux of the issue there.
This individual dimisses my experience from the military, in the NZ security industry & work in Iraq.
Health & safety especially in a service like security does not rely just on a system. In fact due to nature of the work carried out by the profession what is more important is Common Sense coupled with Experience (not a bit of paper or formal course) & a culture of dynamic Risk Assessment.
The type of Risk Assessment you get trained to carryout in the NZ military. From early days young soldiers get told "as you move along look for places to take cover if such & such happens" it is a type of Risk Assessment.
Initially though young soldiers are more concerned about how hard the physical requirements are, but as time goes by those sort of actions become second nature.
They then add in actions like looking for possible booby traps when moving whilst carrying up to 100kg plus packs without having to go through the whole process consciously.
So does this transfer to the civilian environment? Yes!
In fact, & I will go into this more in a later blog, at times other security personal have said "I think so fast", it is not that, but my military training kicking in when situations call for it, which often means when confronted with an issue they have never confronted before.
Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety - CD-Rom
With inadeaquate training or awaremess of health & saftey instinctively, my civilian counterparts are still thinking of the first step whilst myself & army comrades are already on step four or higher. So it appears to them that we are thinking very fast.
An example of the level of military training over what the industry provides was an incident early in my time in the industry.
I was on duty in a complex when I was paged to reception & handed a small case. Apparently someone was concerned it had been sitting in the middle of reception for three hours. Of course from the staff reaction it appeared they thought it was a bomb. Straight away I knew there was one type of bomb it wasn't.
When I was relieved a few hours later by another ex military person, his first reaction was "you didn't call the bomb squad?". No, because of our superior training as soon as I was handed it the check list we used to use in the army popped right into my head.
As I walked outside with the case, I ran through it & realized there was no way this was a bomb. The only mistake I made was opening in view of the staff, from a health & safety point of view which was not good.
That staff still thought it was a bomb was shown by fact that even though it was dark t they were watching & as I opened it, were seen to dive under the counter.
From there another difference came out between a person with a military background to those without. Not for the first time after an incident that worked out well, my civilian counterparts could not work out why myself or any military person would then look to learn from lessons & improve our performance for the next time.
Whilst in Iraq this dynamic way of looking at things was to the fore as the whole situation & threats were ever changing your risk assessment was also dynamic. It was health & safety at its extreme. But again that good training kicked in without much fuss.
Security in NZ requires much the same thinking as any Standard Operating Procedures will not cover all contingencies. Thats if the company has them.
During my initial NZQA security course (a well run one with plenty of hands on training unlike most courses) the question was asked of an OSH inspector as to where security fitted in since much of the industries work fell outside OSH at that time. Also that many places had procedures but no body actually knew what they were.
The reply was that is correct, but security's role was to identify hazards as encountered & report them. They then directed their reply to me & said as ex army you know the drills if there is an accident happens during live firing? Yes of course. Well that is the OSH procedure for an accident.
More recently an incident involving an associtated industry responding to a call out & a serious accident occuring due to the fact that like security they entered a business without prior knowledge of it.
After discussion with a Health & Safety officer from the department of Labour at a business seminar, I was asked would I be interested in joining a group looking at this issue. To date though nothing has come of it.
But the discussion had been about how the military teach you, as I said in the beginning to have a dynamic risk assessment culture, this is what they felt they needed to install in industries who respond to premises they don't usually visit or are not fully aware of all dangers.
This culture far outways any system or piece of paper, although in conjunction with a system can be very robust.
Due to time contraints it is not unusual, in fact most common place to see security racing from one premises to another without slowing to take in account as to risks they maybe rushing too.
Someone who worked security in Australia once told me a story about their first night alone. They were rushing due to time, came around a corner to be confronted by three pers wanting his firearm. He hadn't yet being issued or been able to obtain one.
It reminded me what I often see with NZ security racing around corners to you don't know what.
My assessments of the security situation here in NZ is based on security knowledge, experience & risk assessment.
I have often been told & more so recently by some I worked alongside in Iraq, we can all see it coming, don't wear yourself out trying to educate people. When these things happen if you set yourself up correctly, then we will be able to walk in as the industry here has no idea what it is doing.
Occupational Health at Work
Personally I believe in trying to stop it from happening here & making the place truly safe to live in. To do that you have to ensure the basic security & Health & Safety are taken care off.
http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz
Thursday, May 20, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
