Exemption from Core Competency Training

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:41 pm

I have just seen the list of exemptions from Core Competency Training for Guarding listed on the SIA website.

Have I misread the list?

I don't seem to see previous experience mentioned anywhere in the list.

Just to clarify my point of view a little, I already hold sufficient qualifications that are on the list to satisfy the criteria for exemption so this post isn't sour grapes.

What has really pissed me off is the fact that there are many operatives already in the security industry that have experience, and in many instances, years of experience from HM Government related services.

Obviously government trained operatives aren't "Good enough" to pre-qualify for exemption.

There must be many other men & women out there who have received far superior training than any of the exemptions listed. Add their experience to their training and surely this should warrant exemption.

I cannot comment on positions I have not held, but I can comment on my own.

15 years as a Prison Officer (in some of the hardest shit-holes in this country......Oh, and Ireland as well.)
Trust me.....when I say that is guarding, I mean guarding.
You want security? Try a few years in a Category A Prison.
NOT a week in a Gatehouse at a factory somewhere in suburbia.

Since then, 10 years plus in the security industry.

Are the SIA implying that my training wasn't good enough?

Talk about teaching your granny to suck eggs !!!!

SIA..........LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY BEFORE YOU DESTROY IT COMPLETELY.

YOUR INSISTENCE ON PERSONS ATTENDING PETTY 3 DAY COURSES TO GET A LICENCE IS NOTHING BUT A MONEY MAKING EXERCISE.

Important end note:
The views expressed above are my own and are not representative of The Guild of Security.

CorSec.

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:18 am

I would have to agree that some of the qualifications listed are less than ideal. The mere fact that some of them are listed as 'Basic Job Training' should have triggered some further research into the required core competency skills.
Whilst not wanting to knock the BJT too much specifically, they do provide exactly what it says on the tin - an introducion to basic guarding skills.

The whole instigation of the SIA was to increase the minimum level of core competency skills, apply criminal records checks and enforce those standards as well as promote these changes to the industry and he general public. I have yet to see any advertising to the general public informing them that previously held conceptions regarding the industry are about to change.

Every employer I have worked for has criticised the BJT courses but sadly, failed to put its money where its mouthpiece is and say to the SIA "We need something better". So from that point of view, it is highly likely that the SIA has been mislead into beleiving the BJT is an acceptable standard for Part1 exemption.

More importantly, no one has bothered to look at the loop-holes, which we made the SIA aware of where employers are using old course materials, 'helping' candidates to pass the exam where they might not have done so and filling in the training booklet (BJT Part 2) themselves to make their training records look good.

Personally, I still feel that the examiner and tutor should be mutually independant of one another to avoid these pitfalls unless the relevant course is undertaken outside of the manipulations of the industry, such as a college or other establishment of further education.

Perhaps anyone reading this might want to check out our Petitions in the main menu.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:34 pm

yes John/ Corsec

Sadly it is as you both say Corsec like you I spent 22 years in the army
and to the people like us we know that we are highly trained but unfortunatly the SIA seem to have forgotten this fact it is a money making exercise for the government as we are the most highly taxwd country in the world, So now we have to pay for a licence to work and feed our familys,a lot of security officers as we all know are on low pay and may not be able to pay £190, so if it is a choice bewtween paying my mortgage /rent that will be paid before the licence fee will
any comments
bigyin

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

one such reason previous experience is not considered is because some people who've worked in the industry for years and years have little or know training outside of their site.

the new training covers more stuff, and if you get the licence you need to be able to slot in at any site, so a prison officer for example would not really be able to jump right into a retail environment.

aside from that the crux of it is to ensure everyones trained the same.

not that im defending it at all, but there is logic to the madness.

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:22 pm

Quote:

the new training covers more stuff, and if you get the licence you need to be able to slot in at any site,

So a two day BJT course makes a newbie to the industry able to "Slot in at any site" Question

Sorry my friend. I must disagree.

Quote:

the new training covers more stuff

Fraid not.......I know. I teach the courses at college.

Quote:

aside from that the crux of it is to ensure everyones trained the same.

I think you will find that not all training providers are thinking along those lines.

Some provide piss poor courses and are only in it for the money.

Some "In house" training involves someone just signing a certificate stating Joe Bloggs has ------- whatever certificate.

I can appreciate the way you see it, but with the greatest of respect, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree on this occasion.

With respect.

Mike.

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

hey no worries... i share your opinion. having read and digested the S/LP NOS and looked at the actual content of new training courses.

was just trying to outline the logic behind their thinking.

i have a story of recent origins ill share with you in a little while.

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:44 am

corsec/spooky

not everyone will be trained the same or be able to slot in at any site so
spooky you are saying that a static security officer will be able to fit into a
retail security officersand a retail security officer will fit into a close protection role/door supervisors role I must disagree with you on this as the training for each of these roles is differant from each other as Ihave worked in all of these roles and I am sure others have too so I would have to disagree with you on the training side of the above jobs.

Any Comments
Regards
bigyin

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:44 am

There is a distinct divide between retail and corporate security (the industries terms not mine). The BJT course most security officers will find themselves on seems to concentrate predominantly on the corporate side - after all, no one in retail is about to phone their control room before they start every patrol, there are no keys or equipment registers to keep, no welfare calls, no intruder or fire alarm system monitoring to undertake and I have yet to see a farmers truck in a shop that needed searching.

This is why we really do need a tiered licencing system - there is a distinct and unequivacable different between the core competency skills of corporate / retail security. Having a BJT is one thing, but having a BJT with the correct core competency skills is another and therefore the licence should reflect that to prevent unscrupulous companies providing security personnel who are inadequatley / incorrectly trained.

To put you all out your misery, raise a few eyebrows and generally be controversial, there is one simple reason that BJT was included as Part 1 excemption.
Look who the main Principles are at SIA then compare those names with the main Principles of the BSIA - and then remember that SITO is the sister company of the BSIA.
Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:40 am

I’ve just read an advertisement in “The professional Security” magazine in it the SIA state that from Feb of next year it will be unlawful for persons to clamp cars on PRIVATE land without the license. Part of my current role as a Shopping Centre Security Officer is to clamp persistent offenders of those who park without displaying a current ticket and/or permit.

In February will I need a “Clamping License” or would this be covered within the “standard” Security license?

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:51 pm

Now you are going to job the club Dave.
I and many others have mentioned the need for a tiered licencing system on more than one accassion - unfortunately, you are about to witness one of the many valid reasons first hand (sorry Dave).
You will have to fork out £190 for your security officers licence and another £190 for a clamping licence.
If you do any door work on your days off - theres another £190.

What it should be is for processing fee and CRB check......£150
Security licence (Corporate) grade .................................£40
Security Licence (Retail) grade .......................................£40
Clampers grade ............................................................£40
etc ...............................................................................£40

this is still far too much but at least we are getting within the realms of sensibility.

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

bigyin wrote:

corsec/spooky

not everyone will be trained the same or be able to slot in at any site so
spooky you are saying that a static security officer will be able to fit into a
retail security officersand a retail security officer will fit into a close protection role/door supervisors

woah woah woah! i in no way said a close protection bod or door supervisor can be done on the same course. they are different courses and critically, different licenses.

the manned guarding license is what will cover retail, front of house, all that kinda thing and although i know full well that its not gonna work out quite that simply, the intention was for the training for the manned guarding license to cover the manned guard for work in any of those roles.

though as i said - its not gonna work out like that. remember, the bjt is BASIC job training.

to take a comparison:

phase one military stuff, basic mil skills everyone needs to know. (essentially BJT)

phase two, trade training. (no such equivilant in the security industry)

the difference here is in the security industry, after the BJT theres not likely to be any more training. closest thing is on site; site specific training, as rare as that is.

so the BJT, however crap it is, is only there to teach someone the basics.
the question i feel that needs answering is where the formal training for job role is to come in after.

as for door supervising, thats been addressed, different course, different license.

the close protection side is in the works now.

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:13 pm

Apologies Spooky
Read your email wrong came in at early oclock so apologies once more
does any one have a copy of the handcuff manual that ems george sentout if someone has can they please email me a copy
thank you guys
bigyin

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:48 pm

Bigyin,

Send me an e-mail, I'll send the document by return.

As for the extra license I think I'll advise the client to have the contract amended so that a independent body can deal with the clamping!
:butthead: :ANAL:

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:52 am

The Handcuff Protocols document is available in the downloads section in pdf format.

http://www.guildofsecurity.co.uk/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2

Newbie Joined: Jul 20, 2004 Posts: 4 Location: Unknown

The issue of Core Competency exemptions will always be a tricky one. At SITO we are very aware of the fact that many former Police and HMF personnel have been disadvantaged because they do not have "recognised" qualifications. SITO and an increasing number of professional training providers are now working with HMF to resolve this as is the MoD CTP. The Police Service under the joint banners of ACPO and Skills for Justice are also looking at how they can ensure skills transferability.

This does not help those of you who left some time ago, but hopefully future service leavers will benefit from some "joined up thinking" at last!

Stefan Hay
Director
SITO Very Happy